Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
- Subject: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
- From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:04:27 -0500
Roger,
I'm glad to hear you're able to address IM properly. Perhaps there's
hope that I can too!
I've gotten convert to run by using the full path, but it complains
that it has no delegate method for this type of file (jpg). This is
the same error I had after initially installing IM and is what caused
me to install mac ports in order to use that to install the jpg
support. ODD process I went through to get this working. I m beginning
to suspect that I have a flawed installation.
How did you install Imagemajik?
Thanks
Paul
On Dec 4, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Roger Howard wrote:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:23:59 -0500, Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
wrote:
Even if I call the tool with a full path this will always fail
because it won't have access to the dependencies that imagemagik
requires. It's not possible unless I could build IM in a default path
for sh shell.
Paul - maybe I'm missing something here, but I have no issues with
calling
shell tools by the full path, regardless of their dependencies... I
script
ImageMagick this way all the time, along with exiftool, flac/lame, and
others. I always make it a habit to use the full path to any binary
I call
unless it's a part of the stock OSX, and have yet to see an issue
with the
called binary not being able to link to its dependencies.
Oh well, it's not like I could distribute this script with an IM
dependency anyway.
Well, a statically compiled ImageMagick convert binary (or the
entire IM
package) could easily be bundled into a script bundle - done that
before,
when I had no control over the execution environment.
I spent 3 hours installing and updating macports,
rubygems and IM just to get this to run properly in the terminal. And
I certainly wouldn't think of futzing around with the install
paths. I
wonder if it is possible to somehow get the default sh shell paths to
see the tools using symlinks and such. No, I'd probably just shoot
myself in the foot with the terminal.
Symlinks would work fine if you really must have the binary
available in
one of the standard paths - personally, I prefer to just call them
by a
full path in do shell script to begin with.
- Roger
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden