Frederic Crozat wrote:
Well, who said we introduced a bug in Argyllcms ?
Have you tested with an Eye-One pro ? And while you may have patched your libusb, the source code has to defend against others who have not.
I made sure to contact people who had issue with your first patch on libusb, when I tried to integrate it in cooker some months ago. Fortunately, those issue were corrected so I integrated your patch in our cooker libusb and I had to disable your ugly code check in argyllcms (which, btw, is wrong, since unpatched argyllcms running on a non-argyllmcsified libusb will not even be started, since a symbol will be missing (and you won't see the "expected" error message).
As intended, but it also picks up a similar issue with the MSWindows version at run time.
I still think it is extremely ugly to do this kind of hack, without any previous warning to distributions like us. I discovered this while packaging argyllcms 1.0.0 and manually diffing your patched copy of libusb with a "upstream" libusb.
You were warned, last time we had this discussion. You wouldn't see this issue if you used Argyll as released. Graeme Gill.
