Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] Concerns regarding the ImageMagick package

From: Natanael Copa <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:06:23 +0200

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:07:57 -0500
"A. Wilcox" <> wrote:

> Hello Alpinists,
> We (at Adélie) have identified a few issues with the Alpine ImageMagick
> package:
> 1) The version of Ghostscript packaged in main/ghostscript is AGPL, not
> GPL. I believe it violates the licenses of both packages to link them
> together, and yet this is happening.

It looks like Fedora also does this?

> I highly suggest that Alpine ship Ghostscript 9.06, the last GPL
> version, along with Debian's security patches for it. We had to do this
> when we were based on Gentoo (see
> for the ebuild I wrote) because Gentoo's CUPS depends on Ghostscript.
> If an APKBUILD for Ghostscript 9.06 is desired, I would be more than
> happy to create one.

I would prefer not use an old/abandoned version of ghostscript.

It looks like you can build imagemagick with --without-libgs and the plugin will execute an external program instead of link directly
to libgs. This means that we can work around the link time license issues.

I have tested and the plugin is built but not linked with libgs.
I have not tested if it actually works though.

If we go that route we need to either:
- document the optional dependency for ghostscript
- manually add ghostscript as an explicit dependency
- move and plugins to a separate subpackage
  (imagemagick-pdf?) and add ghostscript as dependency for those.

We could maybe even separate out the imagemagick pdf and gs plugins
anyways. That way you only get the license problem when you install the

> 2) ImageMagick's X11 support is disabled. I would understand that,
> allowing one to use ImageMagick without installing X11 libraries, but
> ImageMagick is linked against librsvg, which is linked against pango.
> As shown on the Alpine package browser[1], pango pulls in libX11 and
> libXext, which are ImageMagick's only X11 library dependencies. As
> such, no makedepends/checkdepends modifications are technically
> necessary to change to --with-x (though libx11-dev and libxext-dev would
> be a good idea). Since this adds a lot of functionality and virtually
> no binary size difference, we think it'd be a good idea to investigate this.

Good idea. I will look into that.

Alternatively we could put the plugin in a subpackage. Then we
don't pull in the X11 libs til someone explicitly asks for svg support.

> Best,
> --arw
> [1]:

Received on Thu Mar 29 2018 - 17:06:23 UTC