[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Bernd Kuhls]

Upstream quickly removes old versions from
http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases

For our LTS versions we should switch to a stable upstream repo which
provides all released versions.

Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
---
 package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash | 4 ++--
 package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk   | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
index 173dd415c..3e2749dd4 100644
--- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
+++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-# From http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases/digest.rdf
-sha256 0058fcde533986334458a5c99600b1b9633182dd9562cbad4ba618c5ccf2a28f  ImageMagick-7.0.5-10.tar.xz
+# Locally computed
+sha256 bd965d36a65cbcd420ec79a509a5ce0ecdfef036770cdc87fcd5374b9ed15ea7  7.0.5-10.tar.gz
diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
index 7aade62da..23552d708 100644
--- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
+++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 ################################################################################
 
 IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
-IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz
-IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
+IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
+IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive
 IMAGEMAGICK_LICENSE = Apache-2.0
 IMAGEMAGICK_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE
 
-- 
2.11.0

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] package/imagemagick: bump version to 7.0.6-0

[Bernd Kuhls]

Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
---
 package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash | 2 +-
 package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk   | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
index 3e2749dd4..d3097f522 100644
--- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
+++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 # Locally computed
-sha256 bd965d36a65cbcd420ec79a509a5ce0ecdfef036770cdc87fcd5374b9ed15ea7  7.0.5-10.tar.gz
+sha256 3a6b21352ed0eb984bdbd0943471df8605b978b527125921e97e5b404f2bee3a  7.0.6-0.tar.gz
diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
index 23552d708..22c29d36a 100644
--- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
+++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
+IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.6-0
 IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
 IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive
 IMAGEMAGICK_LICENSE = Apache-2.0
-- 
2.11.0

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 09:45:37 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
> Upstream quickly removes old versions from
> http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
> 
> For our LTS versions we should switch to a stable upstream repo which
> provides all released versions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
> ---
>  package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash | 4 ++--
>  package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk   | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Series applied. Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> writes:

 > Upstream quickly removes old versions from
 > http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases

 > For our LTS versions we should switch to a stable upstream repo which
 > provides all released versions.

 > Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de>
 > ---
 >  package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash | 4 ++--
 >  package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk   | 4 ++--
 >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

 > diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
 > index 173dd415c..3e2749dd4 100644
 > --- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
 > +++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.hash
 > @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 > -# From http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases/digest.rdf
 > -sha256 0058fcde533986334458a5c99600b1b9633182dd9562cbad4ba618c5ccf2a28f  ImageMagick-7.0.5-10.tar.xz
 > +# Locally computed
 > +sha256 bd965d36a65cbcd420ec79a509a5ce0ecdfef036770cdc87fcd5374b9ed15ea7  7.0.5-10.tar.gz
 > diff --git a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
 > index 7aade62da..23552d708 100644
 > --- a/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
 > +++ b/package/imagemagick/imagemagick.mk
 > @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 >  ################################################################################
 
 >  IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
 > -IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz
 > -IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
 > +IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
 > +IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive

That SOURCE name is a bit annoying. Is it a big issue that upstream
(re)moves the downloads after some time when we transparently fall back
to getting it from sources.buildroot.org?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:13:54 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:

>  >  IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
>  > -IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz
>  > -IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
>  > +IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
>  > +IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive  
> 
> That SOURCE name is a bit annoying. Is it a big issue that upstream
> (re)moves the downloads after some time when we transparently fall back
> to getting it from sources.buildroot.org?

I indeed hadn't seen the stupid name for the tarball. On my side, I
find it a bit annoying that we have to rely on sources.b.o to make
things work, so having upstream location that are working on the long
run is much better when possible. But I agree that the tarball name is
really silly here, and the risk of conflict with other packages is real.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:

 > Hello,
 > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:13:54 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:

 >> >  IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
 >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz
 >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
 >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
 >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive  
 >> 
 >> That SOURCE name is a bit annoying. Is it a big issue that upstream
 >> (re)moves the downloads after some time when we transparently fall back
 >> to getting it from sources.buildroot.org?

 > I indeed hadn't seen the stupid name for the tarball. On my side, I
 > find it a bit annoying that we have to rely on sources.b.o to make
 > things work, so having upstream location that are working on the long
 > run is much better when possible. But I agree that the tarball name is
 > really silly here, and the risk of conflict with other packages is real.

That is exactly my concern. So what do we do? Leave it like this so
s.b.o isn't needed or revert to get back a sane tarball name?

There's pro/cons to both, but I think I would prefer to revert.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:04:03 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:

>  >> >  IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION = 7.0.5-10
>  >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = ImageMagick-$(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.xz
>  >> > -IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = http://www.imagemagick.org/download/releases
>  >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SOURCE = $(IMAGEMAGICK_VERSION).tar.gz
>  >> > +IMAGEMAGICK_SITE = https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/archive    
>  >> 
>  >> That SOURCE name is a bit annoying. Is it a big issue that upstream
>  >> (re)moves the downloads after some time when we transparently fall back
>  >> to getting it from sources.buildroot.org?  
> 
>  > I indeed hadn't seen the stupid name for the tarball. On my side, I
>  > find it a bit annoying that we have to rely on sources.b.o to make
>  > things work, so having upstream location that are working on the long
>  > run is much better when possible. But I agree that the tarball name is
>  > really silly here, and the risk of conflict with other packages is real.  
> 
> That is exactly my concern. So what do we do? Leave it like this so
> s.b.o isn't needed or revert to get back a sane tarball name?
> 
> There's pro/cons to both, but I think I would prefer to revert.

Perhaps we could revert *and* talk to the upstream developers and ask
them to keep the tarballs at the same place, instead of (re)moving
them ?

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] package/imagemagick: change download url to github

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:

Hi,

>> > I indeed hadn't seen the stupid name for the tarball. On my side, I
 >> > find it a bit annoying that we have to rely on sources.b.o to make
 >> > things work, so having upstream location that are working on the long
 >> > run is much better when possible. But I agree that the tarball name is
 >> > really silly here, and the risk of conflict with other packages is real.  
 >> 
 >> That is exactly my concern. So what do we do? Leave it like this so
 >> s.b.o isn't needed or revert to get back a sane tarball name?
 >> 
 >> There's pro/cons to both, but I think I would prefer to revert.

 > Perhaps we could revert *and* talk to the upstream developers and ask
 > them to keep the tarballs at the same place, instead of (re)moving
 > them ?

That is certainly worth a try. It is imagemagick though, so you never
know. They seem to really remove all <version>-<minor> except the latest
<minor> in each series.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard