On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:03:15AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Then I think it is bad to penalize users with a correct convert,
> either we should have a check for a faulty one, or just document it
> and show how to work around when the need arises.
OK, apply this then.
thanks
john
--
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 03:45:13AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | 2) the convert -depth 8 workaround is going in
>>
>> as a blanket fix? Or just for certain versions of convert?
>
| Blanket I guess. -depth 16 should work too.
>
| OTOH I can whip
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 03:45:13AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | 2) the convert -depth 8 workaround is going in
>
> as a blanket fix? Or just for certain versions of convert?
Blanket I guess. -depth 16 should work too.
OTOH I can whip a patch to UPGRADING if you're not happy with this.
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| OK, a little more descriptive. This assumes :
>
| 1) Dekel's floatingfigure patch isn't going in
It seems that this has some more implications yes.
So it will probably not go in.
| 2) the convert -depth 8 workaround is going in
as a blanket fix? Or just
OK, a little more descriptive. This assumes :
1) Dekel's floatingfigure patch isn't going in
2) the convert -depth 8 workaround is going in
When either/both of these change I'll modify the file again to suit
please apply
john
--
"Please let's not resume the argument with the usual whining ab
