[argyllcms] Re: hargyllcms available now.
- From: Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:20:02 +0000
2009/12/14 Roland Mas <lolando@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> I'm slightly disappointed by this. You completely ignore the work I
> did in the last 8 months
No, I did things a different way. I've split the tools and the
libraries, meaning you don't have to worry about all those recursive
dep chains. I looked at your tree, but wanted to do it another way.
Doing things without recursive deps took me an afternoon.
> you reimplement the biggest of the patches,
Well, I wanted to remove the other bundled libraries, but keep in
libicc. I only imported the bits that I needed (i.e not jncf).
> you add stuff that “most distros will have to apply” that serves no
> purpose that I can see
The scanner stuff? Well, I can't talk too much about the legal bits,
but I suggest you talk to your legal team about using a scanned in
image to generate a profile. You can talk to Red Hat legal yourself if
you want more details, I've deliberately tried to avoid knowing too
much about the patent in question.
> and you don't even bother to separate
> independent features/patches into their own branch so people downstream
> of you can assemble them as they see fit.
I didn't want to do this, as some of the branches would conflict. I
didn't want to present a distro with "options", just a single tarball
that just works.
> As far as I can tell, all this because you don't like bzr.
Sure, I don't like bazaar, I think it's clunky. All my other projects
I contribute to use either svn or git. I find bzr hard to use and
don't really want to put in the effort to learning yet another SCM
just to generate a tarball, nor do I think other people should.
> Or people could just use what's been in Debian since April (and Ubuntu
> since June). That one's already seen some testing, including building
> on a dozen architectures.
Sure, it's a choice. I've done things differently with hargyllcms than
you've done with your version. I'm not asking you to stop packaging
your version, I'm just providing an alternative. If it's useful to
nobody but Fedora, well, no problem.
Richard.
Other related posts:
