Re: imagemagick vs GD2?
Simon Rönnqvist <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.cms.bitflux.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Aug 14, 2005, at 13:41, Christian Stocker wrote:
> On 13.8.2005 16:47 Uhr, Simon Rönnqvist wrote:
>> 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.
So are you suggesting that both imagemagick and GD2 should be
installed?
Or does this mean that you're abandoning imagemagick for GD2?
>>
>> 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")
Strange... Iv'e got imagemagick installed (and php compiled with --
with-imagick), still it doesn't seem to work...
How do I enable the command line support?
cheers, Simon
--
bitflux-cms mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bitflux-cms