Re: imagemagick vs GD2?
Christian Stocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.cms.bitflux.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi
On 13.8.2005 16:47 Uhr, Simon Rönnqvist wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed that it's possible to use GD2 instead of imagemagick in the
> newest dev version.
> In what ways does using imagemagick differ from using GD2 (exept for
> GD2 being easier to install)?
GD2 instead of imagemagick is used for the dynimages stuff, meaning the
automatic resizing of images from for example the gallery.
>
> BTW. How does one compile command-line support for imagemagick?
> Compiling with just --with-imagick won't do...
That's the standard exec()/system() command line support, nothing
special has to be done for imagemagick on the php side, nothing has to
be compiled in. Although you do have to have imagemagick installed on
your server (and being allowed to call command-line functions). You can
test that with exec("convert foo.jpg bar.png")
chregu
--
christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich
phone +41 1 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71
http://www.bitflux.ch | [email protected] | gnupg-keyid 0x5CE1DECB
--
bitflux-cms mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bitflux-cms