[argyllcms] Re: I seem to be losing the installed LUT in X or someting
- From: Kai-Uwe Behrmann <ku.b@xxxxxx>
- To: ArgyllCMS <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:33:28 +0200 (MEST)
From: Roland Mas <lolando@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:53:08 +0200
Graeme Gill, 2010-07-29 20:26:44 +1000 :
Richard Hughes wrote:
[...]
Put yourself in my shoes. Fedora is very strict about using external
libraries rather than internal ones, and I had to do quite a bit of
work to allow argyll to continue to be shipped in Fedora. I deal with
a lot of upstream projects in my day-to-day work and argyll is much
harder than most to package. Including 4 modified copies of external
libraries is not exactly best practice in software development. Using
a build system that's obsolete and needs patching before running is
kinda unusual. All these things raise the bar for pushing this to
millions of users.
Hi,
Sorry, but to me it is simply disfunctional behaviour - Fedora
deserves to fail if it puts dogma ahead of practicality.
Despite my previous emails, I have to side with Richard here. What
you call ???dogma??? is actually considered ???best practices??? in the
distribution world, and it's *based on* practicality and experience.
That may be the case. Considering maintainability and amount of work
involved, speed of bug fixing and say enshuring a modest level of quality
your best practices is all fine.
But distributors best practice does not necessarily mean distributors meet
the quality standards of a original author. And not only Mozilla is
sensible to the quality, which reaches the end user.
I wonder what triggers distributors best practice thinking in spite of
repeatedly warnings about resulting bad quality. Thats not understandable.
Embedded copies of libraries are an extra burden for distributors
because of the combinatorics involved when one of these libraries needs
to be updated for whatever reason (security update, porting to a new
architecture, porting to a new version of a compiler, porting to an
entirely different compiler, and so on). Shared libraries actually help
maintain a working system with a reasonable amount of work, and that's a
practical advantage.
As long as there are unresolved differences between the ArgyllCMS shipped
library(ies) and external ones you might consider them different projects,
with different goals, qualities, portability and so on.
For graphics projects it is common to fork and recombine existing software
in order to deliver a useable end product. There is some orthogonality in
the concepts of handling dependencies. But thats no reason to
inapropriately change functionality.
kind regards
Kai-Uwe Behrmann
--
developing for colour management
www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org
Other related posts:
- » [argyllcms] Re: I seem to be losing the installed LUT in X or someting - Kai-Uwe Behrmann
