On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 17:55 +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > We didn't specifically rule on the naming, FWIW. As far as IM7
> > being the
> > variant package, we mostly ruled that for F27, nothing using IM
> > in
> > the
> > release blocking media may require IM7. I'm personally neutral on
> > how the
> > files and packages are named as long as the implementation
> > accomplishes
> > that goal.
>
> well, okay, fine, I guess *technically* we could make ImageMagick
> be
> 7
> and have ImageMagick6 and change the requirements in every single
> package that currently requires ImageMagick.
That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7
?
we "just" need change requires on FTBFS packages (with ImageMagick7)
We already have ImageMagick 6.9.3 ABI compatibility package.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-20d59de2dc
> But...let's not do that?
> :)
--
Sérgio M. B.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Sérgio M. B.