Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Anyway, some packaging notes. I've applied: — V1.0.1_patches.txt (not easy to find, not referenced anywhere)
It's just temporary (for those who want stuff fixed) until it gets merged into V1.0.2.
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/argyllcms/argyllcms-1.0.1-printf.patch This patch had already been submitted but some parts haven't been merged by Graeme yet
No, it's never been brought to my attention (although something similar was changed in cgats). It's pity the gcc people don't fix their bug instead of forcing application writers to work around it though.
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/argyllcms/argyllcms-1.0.1-remove-libusb-fork-check.patch Why oh why do we have to do this? I Notice Mandriva had to do something similar. As we said before if there's a specific problem in libusb report it and we'll get it fixed
It's to make sure that Argyll works. If you're not using the provided libusb, it almost certainly won't work with certain instruments. While I attempted to get upstream to change libusb to fix the threading problems that crop up with the i1pro, I don't think they have done so or have any plans to do so since they want to "fix" it in the next, unfinished, incompatible libusb V1.0. So unless you are prepared to patch your libusb and test it with all of the supported instruments, please don't repackage Argyll in a form that is probably broken. How do you propose to fix the bug you've introduced in your version of Argyll ?
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/argyllcms/argyllcms-1.0.1-legal.patch While most sane countries (mine included) do not recognize software patents, there's no need to wave a red flag before patent lawyers. (esp. since cameras are now used instead of scanners).
I made many changes along the lines suggested in the last patch of this nature, and that is it, I'm not prepared to make yet more that degrade the clarity of the documentation.
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/argyllcms/argyllcms-1.0.1-19-color.fdi This includes Graeme's last changes. I'm not sure if a blanket ACL for serial devices is good, if Devid Zeuthen complains I'll drop it
It's not good, but serial instruments don't work without something like this, and it's not clear that there are any better general (ie. not end user specific) solutions. Perhaps you are in a position to install it such that the permissions are only changed for Argyll, rather than all applications (ie. create an Argyll group etc. ?) Graeme Gill.