[argyllcms] Re: dispread fails with ubuntu packed argyllcms with i1pro
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:47:47 +1100
Roland Mas wrote:
I understand your position, but it makes life much harder for
packagers, since it means several copies of libraries with slightly
different feature sets and bug sets are floating around on the system,
which means several times more time to spend on support, which nobody
wants to do. At least in the Debian project, the security team has this
Hmm. and this doesn't count as time spent on support ? (and not just
your time!).
policy of frowning deeply upon such a practice, and I doubt that libusb
could warrant an exception. Arguing with the security team to try to be
granted an exception is more time and energy than I'm willing to spend,
especially since I agree with the general policy. The Java-like mess is
not something I even want to hear about, let alone encourage.
Sounds like there are deep problems then, if the security team is
incapable of being rational.
Having said that, let me be more positive: the common way to achieve
consensus in these discussions is to get your libusb patches upstream.
Tried that, it isn't happening because libusb 0.1 is "closed", and
work is now going into libusb 1.0 (which is far from finished
and stabilized as far as my needs are concerned).
Depend on a specific version of libusb if you doubt that future versions
will work, but once you don't need a fork you can concentrate on Argyll
and be rid of a whole class of bug reports (such as the one that started
this thread).
Sure, but that's the future, and I have to put a whole lot
of time into it (adding support for the libubs-win32 kernel driver,
testing, etc. etc.), and while ultimately it may all come
together, that hasn't been the case in the past, and isn't right now.
I also couldn't end this email here without mentioning that I feel a
bit awkward being asked simultaneously to stick to upstream and to
diverge from upstream. Sticking to upstream has my preference (also
yours, if I'm any judge), but then for consistency's sake I also stick
to libusb's upstream.
(I'm just returning the expectation put on me!)
See above. Upstream won't fix, and I need it to work.
Open source, so problem solved. Obviously I should have also
called it something else and change the function
names ("argyllusb say"), and there wouldn't even be
an issue now, since it would just be "another bit of Argyll code".
[I was assured that my changed to libusb had been merged with
the distro's libusb install, but obviously this isn't the
case if this sort of bug is turning up.]
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
