ImageMagick: Strange symptom: non-error error

[objectivecanine@…]

Running ImageMagick via MacPorts on a Mac Pro, I've discovered a bizarre symptom. I don't see the same issue on other ImageMagick builds on other systems here, even oame-version builds.

tiger:~ keanu$ convert -monitor Scans/Input/scan-00000349.tif -profile Metadata/Profiles/Epson\ V500.icc -intent perceptual -profile Metadata/Profiles/ColorMatch\ RGB.icc test.tif
Load/Image//Volumes/rottweiler/Scans/Input: 100%  [scan-00000349.tif]
Save image: 100%  [test.tif]
convert: unable to get registry ID `cache:/Volumes/rottweiler/Metadata/Profiles/ColorMatch RGB.icc' @ registry.c/GetImageRegistry/224.

tiger:~ keanu$ identify -ping test.tif 
test.tif TIFF 13600x17760 13600x17760+0+0 16-bit DirectClass 1.3498gb 

Despite the error message (and the nonzero exit status), the file was created successfully, contains the correct profile, everything's fine...

However, to say the nonzero exit is confusing every script I've written that checks for errors is an understatement.

Given that I don't get this problem on a Debian Linux system (with the same ImageMagick version, rather than the prepackaged but woefully old Debian-shipped version) I suspect this may not be an upstream bug and am reporting it here.

[blb@…]

Did you build ImageMagick with +lcms variant, perhaps that would help?

[objectivecanine@…]

Replying to blb@…:

Did you build ImageMagick with +lcms variant, perhaps that would help?

ImageMagick @6.5.4-0_0+gs+jpeg2+lcms+mpeg+perl+q16+rsvg+universal

Yes, I need a lot of goodies. :)

[objectivecanine@…]

I just noticed, also: In the command output I shortened a couple paths, and missed one. So while it doesn't look like they match up, they actually do. Oops.

[ryandesign@…]

According to ​the ImageMagick forum you can safely ignore this warning, and it should be gone in a later version of ImageMagick. I just updated the port to 6.5.4-9; does that make the warning go away?

[objectivecanine@…]

Yes, that seems to have done the trick. Though it wasn't just the fact it spat out a warning, it also exited with a nonzero status, which pretty badly broke all my scripts...

And rewriting them to ignore errors would have left a really bad taste in my mouth. :)

But the current revision seems to have fixed that problem, and I put six scans through my processing workflow just to be sure, so it looks like all is well now. Thank you very much for your prompt effort!

[ryandesign@…]

You're welcome! Glad that fixed it.