On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Alastair M. Robinson <profiling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi :) > > Richard Hughes wrote: > >> I _don't_ want to fork Argyll, I just wanting a single UNIXy tarball >> that I can sync with your releases every few months that is suitable >> for distros to just slurp up. > > Maybe I'm alone in this view, but I see an important distinction between > tweaking udev rules, linkage of USB libraries and suchlike on the one hand, > and actual changes to the tunings of the algorithms on the other. This is very true... This is a big difference... But like I said, if some things can't be tuned via command line parameters, patching only remains... I'd never push for my "custom" patch (attached) to be included upstream in Debian... But in my personal repository only my judgment matters :) In any case, documenting any changes at all, is key... Regards, Pascal de Bruijn
--- argyll-1.1.0~rc1.orig/xicc/xmatrix.c +++ argyll-1.1.0~rc1/xicc/xmatrix.c @@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ /* Weights in shaper parameters, to minimise unconstrained "wiggles" */ #define MXNORDERS 30 /* Maximum shaper harmonic orders to use */ #define XSHAPE_MAG 5000.0 /* Overall shaper parameter magnitide */ -#define XSHAPE_BASE 0.00001 /* 0 & 1 harmonic weight */ -#define XSHAPE_HBASE 0.0001 /* 2nd and higher additional weight */ +#define XSHAPE_BASE 0.0001 /* 0 & 1 harmonic weight */ +#define XSHAPE_HBASE 0.001 /* 2nd and higher additional weight */ #undef DEBUG /* Extra printfs */ #undef DEBUG_PLOT /* Plot curves */