[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS build system

  • From: Gerhard Fuernkranz <nospam456@xxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:44:56 +0100

Graeme Gill wrote:
> I'm under the impression that there aren't currently great
> differences between Argyll and what lprof is using. I think
> they're currently tracking my releases reasonably closely.
> I'm happy to make any minor changes to ease the tracking.

IMO one of the major problems is that the various Argyll libraries seem
to be considered "internal interfaces" only. These interfaces are not
stable and may change with each new version of Argyll, and they are
obviously neither guaranteed to be ABI nor API compatible with the
previous versions. So there will always be a strict 1:1 version
dependency between Argyll and a particular application (like lprof)
which uses Argyll libraries, and different applications may require
different versions of Argyll as prerequisite. I see the following ways
to address this:

1) each application continues to include its own copy of the required
Argyll modules and links them statically (as lprof currently does)

2) or the Linux distributions must provide multi-instance capable
packages for Argyll, so that several version of Argyll can be installed
on the system at the same time, as prerequisites for different Argyll
applications which require a different version of Argyll as prerequisite.

3) or future Argyll version would need to provide library interfaces
which are strictly backwards compatible (API, but also ABI, due to
shared libraries) with previous versions. But IMO this is likely a big
restriction for Graeme, as it may prevents flexible design changes (I
understand that there were good reasons for all incompatible changes
which happened in the past).


Other related posts: