[argyllcms] Re: Argyllcms 1.0.1 packaged in fedora-devel
- From: "Frederic Crozat" <fred@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:25:32 +0200
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Hal V. Engel <hvengel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't want to get into the middle of this. But the real issue here is that
> there are problems with a commonly used library, libusb, that need to be
> fixed. This is something that none of us has much control or influence over.
> Graeme is doing what he believes is the right thing to do to insure that
> ArgyllCMS works and I have followed the same path in some of my own work so
> I can understand his point of view (I use a modified version of lcms that
> has a mod that will not end up being available in the stock version).
> Frederic is doing what he can to get the problem with the library fixed at
> least in the context of the distro(s) he supports and many of his points are
> valid. In some respects both are correct although I think we can get more
> done if we work together rather than snipping at each other. After all we
> want ArgyllCMS and the meter libraries to work correctly with the stock
> library and anything we do that does not move things in that direction is
> counter productive.
Agreed. We have different objectives, but some are common, so, let's
try to fix them.
> Instead perhaps we can come up with a plan to get things fixed. One approach
> would be to create a diffinitive patch or patch set for libusb and make this
> available in a very visible place. Perhaps the patch Frederic created is
> that patch? Once this is available all of us can open bug reports with our
> various distro's asking them to apply that patch to libusb. If even one
> major distro is using that patch (or patch set) then most other distros
> should start picking up the patch without too much effort on our part. Since
> this has already happened with fredora and Mandriva then it is mostly a
> matter of getting other distros to start using this patch. When most of the
> major distros are using this patch perhaps at that point the libusb folks
> will see the light and create a version that has been fixed. In the mean
> time most of us running Linux platforms will be using distros that have a
> version of libusb that has been fixed. Once that starts happening the Argyll
> build could prehaps check to see if a patched version is installed and use
> the shared (but patched) version rather than building with the built in
> version of libusb.
>
> Frederic can you provide a link to the libusb patch(es)? Has anyone verified
> that this patch does indeed fix the i1 pro issues in particular? Graeme are
> there any other devices that will have problems if runing agaist an
> unpatched libusb? I have tested the i1 display 2/Lt, Huey and Spyder 2 with
> stock libusb and these are OK but I would be mroe than ahppy to test these
> using this new set of patches. Frederic if you can provide a link to the
> patch(es) I will open a bug report with my distro (gentoo) and perhaps
> others here can do the same thing. This is the correct approach to this
> issue. Users put pressure on the distros to get it fixed and the distros put
> pressure on the library maintainers.
Well, I don't want to take the credit of libusb patch : it is Graeme
work, I "just" diffed unpatched libusb with the one shipped with
Argyllcms 1.0.0, removed the windows and osX part (not relevant for a
distro) and that is it. Patch is available from Mandriva SVN :
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/libusb/current/SOURCES/libusb-0.1.12-concurrency-timeout.patch?view=markup
This mean Mandriva Cooker libusb is exactly the same as the one
version shipped in Argyllcms.
I've seen discussion on libusb mailing-list about this patch, but it
seems new maintainer of libusb is more interested in finishing the
rewrite of libusb and don't want to loose time on maintaining the old
code at the same time (we can't blame him for doing so).
> I should also point out that although ArgyllCMS has not been packaged on
> many distros LProf has been a standard package on many distros for a long
> time and the next release of LProf will be using the ArgyllCMS meter
> libraries. So even if your distro does not have an ArgyllCMS package you can
> point to LProf as something that will need this in the near future. That is
> this in not just about ArgyllCMS.
Well, LProf is not really better either : no release for more than 2
years and a forked version of Argyllcms inside (IIRC). So, it is no
better than Argyllcms regarding shipping duplicate code ;)
--
Frederic Crozat
Other related posts:
