Re: [MacPerl-Porters] GD

[Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>]

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Chris Nandor wrote:

> I have no problem with that, but I think we need to retain GD.  Lots of
> people use it for lots of things.
> 
So I figure we maintain a watching brief on the status of GD, and in the
meantime I'll undertake to look at ImageMagick + PerlMagick with a view to
seeing what we can work with.

My gut hunch is that for a variety of reasons it'll probably be easier to
isolate the useful (non-display) code out of ImageMagick, XS (or SWIG)
that, and avoid PerlMagick altogether.

This brings up some other interesting questions. Even ImageMagick
basically relies on pulling in some standard libraries, like libtiff,
libjpeg, libpng, etc etc, to deal with specific image formats (and of
course on Linux you'd usually have these to start with, or they're easy to
get). So a decision on whether ImageMagick is worthwhile depends on two
things -

1. Porting the non-X part of ImageMagick itself;
AND
2. Seeing what we can do about supplying Mac binaries of enough useful
helper libraries.

If point 2 is a real sticker then we may as well just not do it.

Arved



==== Want to unsubscribe from this list?
==== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-porters-request@macperl.org