On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Frederic Crozat wrote: > >> When I read this, I have the feeling you don't want your software being >> easily >> available to millions of Linux users out there. Too bad :( > > I don't see any point in the interested users getting something that > doesn't work. It creates disappointment and aggravation for all concerned. Where did you see any breaking of Argyllcms 1.0.0 on Mandriva Linux Cooker ? >> I'm not interested in Windows (or MacOS X), since we don't have any >> control on the "platform". > > No, but I am, since I support a wider audience. You at least need to > respect this. I do. But you should also respect people who want to improve the entire platform. >> Sorry, but my goal is to create a "clean" platform, where this kind of >> hacks are not needed. If you were distributing a patch of your change >> on libusb in your tarball, at least, we wouldn't have to hunt after >> those changes. > > You seem to be going out of your way to break things, with the > justification of being "clean" (whatever that means!). I don't > see any point being "clean" and not working. It may be aesthetically > pleasing, but it's also useless. Since I have little idea > what particular version of libusb various platforms use and > have no desire to track this sort of thing (development > is hard enough as it is!) it's difficult to provide patches, > and far simpler and safer to provide a cohesive version that > is known to work. I didn't request a patch against every libusb out of the market, just against the "upstream" version you have patched. Since you don't change libusb version, it is a one time thing. Of course, having a public VCS to track the various changes of argyllcms would make those patches useless (but I digress). And again, I ask the question : where did I broke Argyllcms 1.0.0 on Mandriva Linux Cooker ? -- Frederic Crozat