[argyllcms] Re: DTP41 and Linux

Ben Goren wrote:

The OpenBSD approach, which I rather like, is to use a config file
for things that get that complex. I think this'd rather make a lot
of sense  for Argyll, especially  seeing how  so much of  the time
you'll be  using the exact  same options...and how the  chances of
you remembering  exactly what ``-c  4'' is supposed to  mean three
weeks after you  read the manual for the first  time are virtually
nil....


This approach has its merits, but it also has it's problems. Too often
I've struggled with systems that have hidden configuration, and you're
wondering "why is it doing *that*!". Installation is made more
complicated, and only by reading the manuals can you figure out
where the config is. For some stuff it's great, for other things,
not so great.

The Argyll set of tools were/are really just intended as a test
harness for the underlying code. So I've tilted in the "self contained",
and "directly controllable" direction, rather than trying to set
up a system.

For projects that have a complicated/hard to remember setup, I've
simply creates shell scripts to encapsulate the knowledge. Now,
admittedly, shell scripts will break when I change the meaning
of options, so I've tried to minimize such changes, but given
the small audience and technical nature of the tools, I've
been prepared to break things at times, to keep it reasonably
clean. If changes to the potted viewing conditions change again,
I will see about moving to more symbolic synonyms.

Done right, and 80% of the time you'd never have to type more than
the  command name.


I've generally tried to minimize the number of options needed
anyway, but some of it (ink limits etc.) needs a bit more support
in the file formats to avoid entering the same information several times.
This may get fixed at some stage.

Graeme Gill.


Other related posts: