Image package

[Robert Fong-tom]

On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Thomas Treichl wrote:

> Robert Fong-tom schrieb:
>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Thomas Treichl wrote:
>>> Søren Hauberg schrieb:
>>>> ons, 03 12 2008 kl. 12:57 -0500, skrev Robert Fong-tom:
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2008, at 2:57 AM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> tir, 02 12 2008 kl. 21:03 -0500, skrev Robert Fong-tom:
>>>>>>> Yes I see the headers. In MacPorts they appear to be in /opt/ 
>>>>>>> local/
>>>>>>> include/ImageMagick. There are also a ton of other files in the
>>>>>>> "include" directory which may be the includes for the  
>>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>> So, what does the following commands print if you run the from  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> terminal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Magick++-config --cppflags
>>>>> I get the following:   -I/opt/local/include/ImageMagick
>>>>>>   Magick++-config --ldflags
>>>>> I get the following:   -L/opt/local/lib -L/opt/local/lib -L/usr/ 
>>>>> X11R6/ lib -L/opt/local/lib -lfreetype -lz -Wl,- 
>>>>> framework,CoreServices -Wl,- framework,ApplicationServices -L/ 
>>>>> opt/local/lib
>>>>>> ? Also try to run the from Octave using the 'system' command,  
>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   system ("Magick++-config --cppflags")
>>>>> I get the following:   -I/Applications/Octave.app/Contents/ 
>>>>> Resources/ include/ImageMagick
>>>>> ans = 0
>>>>>>   system ("Magick++-config --ldflags")
>>>>> I get:   -L/Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/lib -L/ 
>>>>> usr/ X11R6/lib
>>>>> ans = 0
>>>> Okay, I'm confused. When you run 'Magick++-config --cppflags'  
>>>> from the
>>>> terminal you get the right path to the header files, but when  
>>>> you run
>>>> the command from within Octave, you get the wrong path to the  
>>>> header
>>>> files. Is that right? If so, then I guess this means you have to  
>>>> set
>>>> some environment variable before starting Octave. I don't even  
>>>> know how
>>>> to start Octave on a Mac, so I doubt I'll be able to help you.  
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> we have some Mac-experts on the list, that are able to say  
>>>> something
>>>> smart?
>>>> Søren
>>>
>>> There must be installed two different versions of ImageMagick in  
>>> two different locations. Otherwise the system command shouldn't  
>>> produce a different result. The first one is in /opt/local/bin  
>>> that comes with MacPorts, please check from Terminal.app
>>>
>>>   ~$ which Magick++-config
>>  I get  : /opt/local/bin/Magick++-config
>>>   ~$ Magick++-config --version
>>  I get: 6.4.6 Q16
>>>
>>> The other one must have been installed manually because I  
>>> currently don't pack ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick into the stable  
>>> Octave.app 3.0.x versions. And the return argument of the system  
>>> command from above is strange. Please check in Octave.app
>>>
>>>   octave-3.0.3> system ("which Magick++-config")
>> I get: /Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/bin/Magick++- 
>> config
>> ans = 0
>>>   octave-3.0.3> system ("Magick++-config --version")
>> I get: 6.4.6 Q16
>> ans = 0
>>>
>>> What I've found out some time ago is that the sources of  
>>> ImageMagick have been changed from 5.x.x to 6.x.x. I am not able  
>>> to find out which version of ImageMagick should be used to  
>>> correctly install the Octave-Forge package image-1.0.8.tar.gz.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>   Thomas
>> You are right about there being two version. Before using MacPorts  
>> to port ImageMagick, I made the mistake of installing it manually  
>> from the ImageMagick ftp site using the UNIX installation  
>> instructions. This did not work with Octave, so I renamed all the  
>> ImageMagick directories/files I could find (but did not delete  
>> them just in case). I guess there must be some statement in the  
>> Octave set-up that is incorrect. Do you know how to fix this?
>
> I think I don't know exactly what you mean here, but if you need a  
> fresh unmodified Octave.app without a 'Magick++-config' program in
>
>   /Applications/Octave.app/Contents/Resources/bin/Magick++-config
>
> then why not just moving Octave.app into trash and then install it  
> again?
Hmmmmm .... this would be the easiest (and obvious?) thing to do  
wouldn't it?? :)
>
> Regards,
>
>   Thomas

Thanks for all your help. The answer was so obvious that I am  
embarrassed to have brought it up in this forum. However i did learn  
a lot from this discussion.

Regards,
Bob