ImageMagick: More insufficient package dependencies
Fri Aug 20 18:14:00 GMT 2010
2010/8/18 Andy Koppe:
> On 18 August 2010 21:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 18 21:32, William Blunn wrote:
>>> On 18/08/2010 19:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:40:17PM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
>>> >>My apologies to all the folks NOT involved in maintaining the ImageMagick package, but there doesn't appear to be any defined process for reporting bugs which might narrow down the attention-grab to a more relevant set of people.
>>> >Actually, this is the defined way to report bugs in a cygwin package.
>>> Ahhhh I see. It's /defined/ to be mediocre.
>>> Rather than attempting to solve the problem head-on, redefine the
>>> problem domain so that the problem is already solved.
>> Is there something in the water lately, which makes people on the
>> list more aggressive than usual?
>> It hasn't been redefined at all. It's the common way of reporting
>> problems for a long time: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
>> If you don't like it, I'm sorry. Are you going to volunteer to
>> maintain a Cygwin packages bug-tracking system?
> Besides, thanks to the magic of mail filters, grabbing the attention
> of a package maintainer isn't the problem anyway. The issue is whether
> there's an active maintainer in the first place.
Yes, ImageMagick IS special.
Well, I've been active on that lately, but I didn't want to maintain it.
Do I really have to debug now emacs building from source. Sigh.
I'm busy with other things.
Volker Quetschke is officially still the maintainer.
Can someone please take over maintainership and check the two problems.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin