Pascal de Bruijn wrote:
* It's using jam, and the automake build system isn't in the tree
Automake isn't cross platform :- it isn't available on MSWindows without installing a whole UNIX like environment, and I prefer using Jam in any case since it's simpler to use. Perhaps some other projects should switch to Jam too :-)
* A heavily hacked up local version of libusb is present
That's what it takes to make the project work reliably with all the different instruments out there. While it would be great to fix libusb so that the current version was suitable for use with Argyll, I thought a release this November would be better than next February...
* No public CVS, SVN or git tree is available
My code base contains some proprietary code that makes it difficult to make public. I'm not sure if there is some arrangement that could accommodate what you're after, if the use cases could be explained.
* The licence has just changed, and the project has multiple licences
That's the nature of assembling a project from a number of components.
The source file is _very_ difficult to build on Linux for distributions such as Fedora.
I'm not sure quite why that is. If you took the approach of first building Jam and then using it to build Argyll, it might be simpler (aren't you building Jam for the Free Type project anyway ?).
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.
There has been some degree of hurt caused by differences between distribution versions and upstream already, notably with breakages. While I'm quite ready to accommodate changes to help people use the code, there are limits. My aims are not necessarily the same as everyone who would like to make use of Argyll (it's not a community project, and specifically it's not a Linux community project - it runs on a wider set of platforms than that. Making the code available under the AGPL is a compromise - I'm trying to make it available as open source while retaining most useful commercial opportunities for myself, hence my choice of the most restrictive available open source license). I specifically chose Jam to avoid Automake, make etc., so no, I'm not going to maintain an Automake build setup! It would be good to get over the libusb thing - it's just a user level library, not a kernel driver or anything terribly important. The normal pressures of development (ie. do I want to maintain a fork of such a library) will probably sort out the duplication in due course (either I'll get around to helping fix libusb so I can use it unaltered, or I'll re-implement USB support within Argyll without using libusb.) Graeme Gill.