Windows binaries: Wrong version numbers?

Post any defects you find in the released or beta versions of the ImageMagick software here. Include the ImageMagick version, OS, and any command-line required to reproduce the problem. Got a patch for a bug? Post it here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 75
Joined: 2014-06-12T03:17:45-07:00
Authentication code: 6789
Location: Berlin

Windows binaries: Wrong version numbers?

Post by Marsu42 »

I recently downloaded an IM update from with date "28-Feb-2015" and the filename...


... but the actual version number from "convert -version" is ...

Version: ImageMagick 6.9.0-8 Q8 x64 2015-02-21

It took me some time to realize because I wanted to test a new bugfix supposedly implemented with the 6.9.0-8 beta (see viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27071#p119878).

Alas, the bugfix doesn't seem to be included, probably because the actual binary inside the package is older than the package version number. It would be nice if you'd keep these in sync to avoid confusion and wasted time on the users' part...

Posts: 168
Joined: 2012-07-15T14:06:46-07:00
Authentication code: 15

Re: Windows binaries: Wrong version numbers?

Post by pipitas »

See also, from 2-3 weeks ago:
to which, unfortunately, no-one has responded yet. Seems our much appreciated IM developers are too busy currently with other more important or more interesting stuff.. :)

User avatar
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2006-04-01T08:16:32-07:00
Location: Maryland 39.26.30N 76.16.01W

[SOLVED] Re: Windows binaries: Wrong version numbers?

Post by glennrp »

I believe version 6.9.0-8 was not published, so 6.9.0-8 and 6.9.0-9 are the same except for the incorrect filename. Look at the ChangeLog.

EDIT: It's straightened out now; 6.9.0-10 has been released and its ChangeLog explains the confusion.

Post Reply