Great work, perhaps we should also take into account that graphics/GraphicsMagick is around and many ports that supports ImageMagick also supports GraphicsMagick to avoid confusion?

In D32754#739560, @diizzy wrote:

Great work, perhaps we should also take into account that graphics/GraphicsMagick is around and many ports that supports ImageMagick also supports GraphicsMagick to avoid confusion?

For this one could support a versions arg of 'gm' possibly -- but that could be added in a second step.

won't it be interesting to also consider graphicmagick here?

In D32754#753202, @bapt wrote:

won't it be interesting to also consider graphicmagick here?

maybe as a second step