22.01.2010 16:41, Jérémy Lal wrote:
Hi,
my naïve questions for today :
1) is graphicsmagick really better than imagemagick ?
it advertises it's twice as fast, scales better, and 'contains'
imagemagick.
This fork was created primarily for legal/licensing reasons.
2) if so, why graphicsmagick is not widely used ?
I don't know. But it is still the fact.
The migration "looks" easy. I feel i'm missing something.
Yes. Vulnerabilities. For licensing reasons, they can't borrow patches
from ImageMagick. And some not-so-competent bug reporters like myself
report bugs only to ImageMagick lists, and thus bugfixes don't reach
GraphicsMagick.
Look here for my posts:
http://studio.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-developers/2009-January
and also:
http://studio.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-developers/2009-March/003119.html
and see if any of the linked images still cause GraphicsMagick to
misbehave (crash, access uninitialized variables, leak memory, or unpack
pixels even if explicitly told to extract only image metadata).
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
