Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #29924 > unrolled thread

PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? Gelonida N <gelonida@gmail.com> - 2012-09-24 22:04 +0200
    Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-24 16:38 -0700
      Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? cjgohlke@gmail.com - 2012-09-24 17:32 -0700
      Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? Alex Clark <aclark@aclark.net> - 2012-09-24 21:46 -0400
        Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-24 19:11 -0700
      Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? Gelonida N <gelonida@gmail.com> - 2012-09-25 10:25 +0200
        Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-25 05:42 -0700
          Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? Gelonida N <gelonida@gmail.com> - 2012-09-26 23:43 +0200
            Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-26 17:28 -0700
    Re: PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives? alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-09-24 19:09 -0700

#29924 — PIL questions: still supported? Problems on 2.7 for win? alternatives?

Hi,

I'm trying to migrate a project with legacy code from 2.6 (with PIL 
1.1.6) to 2.7 with (PIL 1.1.7)
The SW should run on Windows.


PIL fails with an error concering '_imagingft'
This seems to be a known issue.

http://code.google.com/p/pythonxy/issues/detail?id=300
and the bug was never closed.

One suggestion is to download an alternative build from a non official site.

Looking at the activity of PIL ( 
http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/index.htm ) it seems, that 
development stopped,
The latest build (with known bugs and missing functionality for python 
2.7.) seems to be from November 15, 2009.
In the net I read, that there's so little activity on PIL, because it's 
stable, which doesn't seem to be the case for the 2.7 binary package.

This all does not sound very comforting. Why is there no fix on the 
official site?

I wondered whether some of you have a little more insight into what's 
going on with PIL.

Short term: get PIL working on 2.7 windows?
----------------------------------------------------
My shortterm problem is migrating existing code to 2.7 and keeping the 
code, that uses PIL.
So I'll probably try to install the custom binary, but would like to 
know whether anybody has experience with this build.
http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/#pil

Alternatively how tricky is PIL to be compiled with mingw?



Mid term: What to use to manipulate images?
--------------------------------------------

My midterm problem is to stay with Python 2.7 and to write occasinally 
new code, that does some basic image manipulations.

Can I still count on PIL? The fact, that the official devs don't even 
bother to fix some basic functionality of their binary release tells me 
that either very few people use PIL (or at least the broken 
functionality somehow related to the font libraries) on 2.7

What alternatives do exist for PIL?
We just need some lines drawn, some text drown, some scaling, 
transparency merging, . . . and PIL seend decent enough.

There seems to be freeimagepy, but the bindings seem to be 'only' ctypes 
bindings http://freeimagepy.sourceforge.net/
Any experience with this libraries?

Any other suggestions?



Longterm Will PIL officially exist for Python 3?
-------------------------------------------------

When really all libraries that the project  needs are supported
I''ll probably migrate to Python 3.

For Python 3 there is not even a broken official release, but only forks.

Why isn't any of these forks becoming 'official'?

If a package is not supported for Windows via official binary releases / 
easy_install, then I'm a little more afraid, that the package 
(maintainers included) will disappear in the near future.

Thanks a lot in advance for opinions / recommendations / clarifications

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29961

On Sep 25, 6:04 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This all does not sound very comforting. Why is there no fix on the
> official site?

Has a bug been logged about the issue?

The Plone community keeps a fairly up-to-date fork called Pillow,
we've had a lot of success using that locally:

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Pillow/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29979

On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:38:05 PM UTC-7, alex23 wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:04 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This all does not sound very comforting. Why is there no fix on the
> 
> > official site?
> 
> 
> 
> Has a bug been logged about the issue?
> 

See issue #1 at <http://hg.effbot.org/pil-117/issue/1/windows-build-of-_imagingft-module-fails>

Christoph

> 
> 
> The Plone community keeps a fairly up-to-date fork called Pillow,
> 
> we've had a lot of success using that locally:
> 
> 
> 
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Pillow/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29991

On 2012-09-24 23:38:05 +0000, alex23 said:

> On Sep 25, 6:04 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This all does not sound very comforting. Why is there no fix on the
>> official site?
> 
> Has a bug been logged about the issue?
> 
> The Plone community keeps a fairly up-to-date fork called Pillow,
> we've had a lot of success using that locally:
> 
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Pillow/


Actually, I started it for the Plone community, but have recently 
broadened the scope (since most of the contributions came from outside 
Plone). It now lives here:

- https://github.com/python-imaging/Pillow


If you have any trouble using it, please open a ticket here:

- https://github.com/python-imaging/Pillow/issues



Alex



-- 
Alex Clark · http://pythonpackages.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29995

On Sep 25, 11:46 am, Alex Clark <acl...@aclark.net> wrote:
> Actually, I started it for the Plone community, but have recently
> broadened the scope (since most of the contributions came from outside
> Plone).

You're a saint, thanks for taking this on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30046

On 09/25/2012 01:38 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:04 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This all does not sound very comforting. Why is there no fix on the
>> official site?
>
> Has a bug been logged about the issue?
>
> The Plone community keeps a fairly up-to-date fork called Pillow,
> we've had a lot of success using that locally:
>
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Pillow/
>
Thanks for all your answers.

So it seems to be safe to use either Christoph' binary PIL distribution 
or to use Pillow.

The fact, that pillow is accessable via PyPi / easy_install / PIP pushes 
me slightly towards pillow.


I assume it's best to uninstall PIL before installing pillow.


How much would I confuse easy_install / pip in a normal windows
non virutal environment if I didn't uninstall PIP before (or even worse 
if I installed PIL, then pillow and uninstalled then PIL)

(Just anticipating all the smart thigns, that my collegues (or myself) 
might do


On a Linux machine:
What would happen in a virtualenv with sitepackages (amonst them PIL 
installed and a pillow installed ontop of it?
I don't think I can uninstall PIL, as many distro packages depend on it.
I don't want to create a virtualenv without site packages, as I have 
many dependencies and some of them are a little tricky to compile.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30072

On Sep 25, 6:25 pm, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it seems to be safe to use either Christoph' binary PIL distribution
> or to use Pillow.
>
> The fact, that pillow is accessable via PyPi / easy_install / PIP pushes
> me slightly towards pillow.


> I assume it's best to uninstall PIL before installing pillow.

I would expect you'd be fine. Being a different package, it's a
different namespace, so they shouldn't conflict.

> On a Linux machine:
> What would happen in a virtualenv with sitepackages (amonst them PIL
> installed and a pillow installed ontop of it?
> I don't think I can uninstall PIL, as many distro packages depend on it.
> I don't want to create a virtualenv without site packages, as I have
> many dependencies and some of them are a little tricky to compile.

Again, you should be fine, as it's in a separate namespace. You
definitely don't want to mess with PIL if you have other dependencies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30238

On 09/25/2012 02:42 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:25 pm, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So it seems to be safe to use either Christoph' binary PIL distribution
>> or to use Pillow.
>>
>> The fact, that pillow is accessable via PyPi / easy_install / PIP pushes
>> me slightly towards pillow.
>
>
>> I assume it's best to uninstall PIL before installing pillow.
>
> I would expect you'd be fine. Being a different package, it's a
> different namespace, so they shouldn't conflict.

This is what is confusing me.
if I start with a new python and I just install Pillow, then pillow is 
imported via
import PIL
so it does not seem to have a separate name space

If I had PIL and pillow installed, then I wouldn't even know how to 
choose which one to import.


>
>> On a Linux machine:
>> What would happen in a virtualenv with sitepackages (amonst them PIL
>> installed and a pillow installed ontop of it?
>> I don't think I can uninstall PIL, as many distro packages depend on it.
>> I don't want to create a virtualenv without site packages, as I have
>> many dependencies and some of them are a little tricky to compile.
>
> Again, you should be fine, as it's in a separate namespace. You
> definitely don't want to mess with PIL if you have other dependencies.

Well I'm slightly confused, but will play a little to see what exactly works

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30252

On Sep 27, 7:44 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is what is confusing me.
> if I start with a new python and I just install Pillow, then pillow is
> imported via
> import PIL
> so it does not seem to have a separate name space
>
> If I had PIL and pillow installed, then I wouldn't even know how to
> choose which one to import.

Ah, I'm so sorry, I totally thought pillow had moved into its own
namespace (but of course that makes no sense if it's to be a drop-in
replacement for PIL).

To be honest, I never rely on the system install of Python to provide
anything, and prefer to use buildout/setup.py to guarantee the
development/installation environment is correct. I suspect (and
hopefully someone with more virtualenv experience will speak up here)
that you'll have to modify your PYTHONPATH within the virtualenv to
point to your local install of pillow before the site packages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29994

On Sep 25, 6:04 am, Gelonida N <gelon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I'll probably try to install the custom binary, but would like to
> know whether anybody has experience with this
> build.http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/#pil

Sorry, I missed this the first time. I'm using this version
successfully under Windows 7 64-bit. I've had nothing but success with
extensions I've used from that site.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web