[argyllcms] Re: Argyllcms 1.0.1 packaged in fedora-devel

On Sunday 27 July 2008 10:46:11 am edmund ronald wrote:
> Fréderic,
>
>  I may be missing the point about this debate, but the incredible
> thing about Graeme's  binaries is that one can untar them into a
> directory under Mac OS or Linux, type a command line and they actually
> work with the set of instruments they support. There is no
> dependency-hell as far as I can see.
>
>  This simplicity and robustness is quite magical.
>
>  Whatever Graeme is doing may not be orthodox but it sure is a solid
> solution for the people who need color management.
>
> Edmund

For the most part there are very few dependency-hell issues on modern Linux 
distros.  Specifically for libusb every recent distro has used libusb-1.12 
which has been the stable version for almost two years.  It has been in use 
long enough that my distro is currently using three patches.  If there where a 
patch set for ArgyllCMS issues I am sure that I could get my distro to start 
using this new patch in a matter of weeks at least for a "test" version of the 
package.

I am also sure that Graeme would like to get out of the business of having to 
maintain his own copy of what should be a system library.  In the long run it 
would be a big help to Graeme if the libusb issues were fixed.

I don't use the binary versions of ArgyllCMS in part because I run a 64 bit 
system.  But also on modern hardware it only takes about 1 minute to run the 
build which creates a set of binaries that are specific to your sysytem. 

As a general rule we try to avoid staticaly linking what should be common 
shared libraries.  It is only used as a way to fix problems with system 
libraries that are not being addressed by the maintainers of those libraries 
(IE. it is a band aid).  For example I need a version of lcms that had support 
for creating VCGT tags in profiles.  The author is not interested in adding 
this functionality (I offered him a patch -  he thinks he will be sued by 
Apple) so I use a statically linked version of the modified library.  If lcms 
had this functionality I would not even for a seond consider using anything 
other than a shared version of the library.

Hal

Other related posts: