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@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
