#57 closed task (wontfix)
PIL vs imagemagick
| Reported by: | Will Kahn-Greene | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | trivial | Milestone: | |
| Component: | documentation | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Parent Tickets: |
Description (last modified by )
We're having some issues with getting PIL installed into the development environment. Chris talked with the deviantart folks and discovered they're not using PIL--they're using imagemagick.
This issue is for the following:
- researching the pros/cons of switching
- checking to see if there are other options
- if it seems like a good idea and the other options aren't enticing, looking at switching GNU MediaGoblin over to using imagemagick
- if 3 happens, then updating all the docs
Change History (15)
comment:1 by , 15 years ago
comment:2 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | → 0.0.3 |
|---|---|
| Owner: | set to |
meeting result: [C cwebber] Imagemagick support
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
| Priority: | Normal → Low |
|---|
Moving this to low because PIL seems to be working okay for now.
The one issue seems to be that Windows users have some problem with PIL?
comment:4 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.0.3 → 0.0.4 |
|---|
comment:4 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.0.4 → 0.0.5 |
|---|
We release 0.0.4, so I'm bumping this to 0.0.5.
comment:5 by , 15 years ago
| Component: | → Documentation |
|---|---|
| Status: | New → Closed |
Updated to suggest installing PIL. Easier than dealing with development header rigamarule.
comment:7 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.0.5 → 0.1.0 |
|---|
comment:8 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.1.0 → 0.2.0 |
|---|
comment:9 by , 15 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.2.0 → 0.2.1 |
|---|
comment:7 by , 14 years ago
Imagemagick might still be a good idea. Before we can move forward with this though, we have to figure out a safe way to do it. Options afaict are:
- Use one of the wrapper libraries. There are a few of them, I don't have them listed here offhand. But they seem like they might be fragile... I'm not sure.
- Use the command line using subproces.Popen. Supposedly safe because the args are in a list and also it doesn't run a shell. Is it safe enough?
- Use ctypes to bind to imagemagick on our own.
We also want to see: just how much faster is it? Fast enough to switch? I suspect yes...
comment:8 by , 14 years ago
The original url for this bug was http://bugs.foocorp.net/issues/332 .
Relations:
#140: related
comment:9 by , 14 years ago
| Milestone: | 0.2.1 |
|---|
As this is low prio, we likely wont handle this for the next release.
comment:10 by , 14 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|
There's another package called "pillow" which is PIL, but with better packaging. We could also switch to that.
comment:11 by , 14 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | accepted → closed |
I'm going to close this out since no one is interested in taking it on and the project has done fine without this work. If it's an issue, we can open up a new one.
If we are doing imagemagick (good idea) we'll probably need to implement http://bugs.foocorp.net/issues/303 for when the queuing storage systems are remote.