2009/11/6 Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > At very long last I've uploaded ArgyllCMS V1.1.0 RC1 (Release Candidate 1) > to the website to give interested people some time to test and report any > bugs or problems. If there is not too much wrong with it, my intention is > to make V1.1.0 the current stable release in about two weeks. The release indeed looks good. I am slightly worried, building a product on top of ArgyllCMS, where: * It's using jam, and the automake build system isn't in the tree * A heavily hacked up local version of libusb is present * No public CVS, SVN or git tree is available * The licence has just changed, and the project has multiple licences The source file is _very_ difficult to build on Linux for distributions such as Fedora. The alternative would be for one of us distro folk to "fork" ArgyllCMS, add the automake build files and enable the system wide libusb, and then release it as SpecialVersionOfArgyllCMSForDistros-1.1.0.tar.gz. It would then be a case of just updating the few source files whenever you do an upstream release in the future. This isn't something that _I_ want to do (unless you think it's a good idea...), as I think it would hurt ArgyllCMS upstream. As a maintainer myself (PackageKit, gnome-power-manager, gnome-packagekit, DeviceKit-power, gnome-color-manager, ohm, app-install, etc) I know that you can't just pump out a tarball every few months to create a viable upstream that encourages development and testing. At the moment, it's a very difficult task to update ArgyllCMS from one version to another. It's also very hard to actually send patches for ArgyllCMS that you know are still going to apply. It's also practically impossible to do any distributed development without having a git or bzr tree to push and pull from. Don't get me wrong, I think you do a stellar effort in creating this stuff, but it's ringing quite a few alarm bells right now. Comments welcome. Thanks. Richard.