[argyllcms] Re: Argyll CMS in Fedora (and Mandriva)

  • From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:45:04 +0100

Le vendredi 14 décembre 2007 à 23:35 +1100, Graeme Gill a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Unfortunately that's not the case from a packaging point of view. That's
> > been my experience and that of all the other people I know who tried to
> > package argyll. Why do you think that despite being there for a decade,
> > and pointed to in every CMS howto in the web, Argyll had not been 
> > included in any distribution till very recently?
> Inflexibility on the part of the distributions ? :-)

I won't pretend Fedora is not strict, we know how to draw a red line and
stick to it, but permissive distributions didn't package Argyll CMS

> > jam may be modular internally but it assumes a static environment which
> > makes it very hard to get it to use system libraries instead of internal
> > copies.
> It's not the modularity of the build system itself that concerns me,
> it is the modularity of the build scripts. And I'm not sure I
> understand what you mean about assuming a static environment -
> being a proper language, it can be made quite responsive to its
> environment.

Ok, file it under yet another packager not understanding jam goodness
then :)

> > A switch that makes argyll use dynamic linking internally would help
> > too. Separate dynamic libraries make license auditing easier (BTW you
> > haven't answered whether the GPVv2 files listed in the doc are also
> > GPLv3 licenced or not. If not you have a licensing conflict)
> Sorry, I started to compose a reply to your initial posting, but
> haven't finished it.
> There are (as far as I know), only two files that I felt weren't clearly
> LGPL or GPLv2+, and that's spectro/filmread.c and target/filmtarg.c (the
> latter which I have mistakenly changed the license of I notice in the last
> Beta release), which is why I made a special case out of them. If it causes
> you issues, the simplest thing is to omit them, as they aren't widely used,
> and in any case printread largely supersedes filmreads functionality.

I've removed them from my build, it's safer and I don't want to waste
legal analysis on files which are not widely used.

>  If as
> you indicate there is a licensing conflict, I'll also remove them from my
> next release, or at least enquire as to whether it's possible to change their
> license to be GPLv2+.

If they are not GPLv2+ there is definitely a licensing conflict if they
link with anything GPLv3 (generally speaking mixed-licensing software
like argyll causes us much grief in legal audits)


Nicolas Mailhot

Other related posts: