<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">It looks like <a href="https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51310" class="">https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51310</a> covers quite a bit of discussion starting five years ago and as recent as three weeks. Someone has a private ImageMagick-7 port that people can use locally, if they wish (bottom comment on ticket). But there's room to say that a good answer isn't necessarily an easy one. And that something being unsatisfactory doesn't mean it's being ignored entirely. :-)<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 26, 2021, at 13:01, Ken Cunningham <<a href="mailto:cunningham@medicalrounds.com" class="">cunningham@medicalrounds.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div class="">Ryan is passionate about this question, and many have attempted to force this issue without success.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No doubt there are 50 closed tickets about it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You will have to take it up directly with Ryan, as MacPorts' manager.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, at some point, public demand must prevail.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ken</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class=""><div class="">On 2021-01-26, at 9:50 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite" class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">The first Bad Idea reason I imagine is if some port(s) that depend on ImageMagick don't play nice with the latest version, to the point where having them work is preferable to having ImageMagick be current.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A counter-argument would be HEIF support (which a quick google suggests was added in ImageMagick 7.0.7-22).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For a number of ports, there is the ability to have multiple versions installed at once; or rather, separate ports for different versions, using distinct pathnames, and often a way to select which is the default. Depending on difficulty, I'd wonder if that would be an option, absent a cleaner solution.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 26, 2021, at 04:00, Ken Cunningham <<a href="mailto:ken.cunningham.webuse@gmail.com" class="">ken.cunningham.webuse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><pre class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><font face="UICTFontTextStyleTallBody" class=""><span style="white-space: normal; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);" class="">For example, ImageMagick is at 7.0.10 in brew, but still at 6.9.11 in ports. </span></font></blockquote><br class=""></pre><pre class="">For years now people have requested a 7.x version of this in MacPorts...Ryan could probably update it in less than 5 minutes.</pre><pre class=""><br class=""></pre><pre class="">But there is some reason I never bothered to read through why that is a Bad Idea.</pre><pre class=""><br class=""></pre><pre class="">Doesn't stop the monthly requests since as long as I've been around, though :)</pre><pre class=""><br class=""></pre><pre class="">K</pre><div class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>