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

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Hal V. Engel <hvengel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday 27 July 2008 11:25:32 am Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Hal V. Engel <hvengel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well there are several big differences. I have yet to see any distro have a
> package that installs the ArgyllCMS meter and spline related code in a
> shared library or set of libraries and the stock ArgyllCMS builds do not do
> this either. Although this might be the case with the autotools build since
> the autotools build for version 0.60 did install this code as shared
> libraries. There are also issues with the API for the ArgyllCMS "libraries"
> which are unstable and change at least to some extent with each new release.
> This means that LProf needs to be modified which each new release of
> ArgyllCMS to account for these API changes. So these are two issues that do
> not exist for libusb that do exist for anyone who attempts to use the
> ArgyllCMS libraries. Since it was not Graeme's intent to create shared
> libraries for anyone elses use I have no right to complain about the above
> issues but it also means that I need to figure out a way to deal with them.
> I would much rather that there was a set of shared libraries with a stable
> API but that is not the current situation and there is nothing I an do about
> it other than figure out how to work my way around it.

The job of a distribution is not to split appart all kind of software
and rewrite them from scratch
just because they are not in the best form we think they should.

My teasing was more to point LProf has its own set of issues ;)

> In other words in one case (libusb) we are talking about a common shared
> library that is likely installed on almost every linux machine on the face
> of the planet and that has a stable API. In the other case we are talking
> about libraries that are not intended for shared use and that are only
> installed on perhaps a few thousand machines for which there is no standard
> installation technique and which has an unstable API. These are totally
> different animals and comparing them is not an Aplles to Apples comparison.
>
> The more correct comparison is how LProf CVS has a modified version of lcms.
> Since this is almost exactly the same situation as with ArgyllCMS and
> libusb. Again it is a widely installed shared library with a stable API that
> is missing a feature needed by a user (LProf). I would love to not have to
> use a modified statically linked version of lcms but upstream will not fix
> the issue that I have with it (they have flat out refused to fix it). Like
> Graeme's situation with libusb I currently have no option other than to
> include a staticaly linked modified version of lcms. And like the libusb
> issue I have no way to fix the upstream side of this. If I provide you with
> a patch can you make it part of your distro(s)?

Well, I don't know what issues your patches would fix, why it was
refused upstream (Graeme libusb
patch was not refused upstream, there was just lack of maintainance on
libusb for years) and if it could
cause regression on other software (first patch from Graeme was
causing regression on some logitech keyboard,
which is why I had to remove it).

But I'm not sure this mailing list is the best place to discuss this.
Maybe openicc ?
-- 
Frederic Crozat

Other related posts: