[argyllcms] Re: Bug Fixes to V1.5.0
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:10:09 +1100
Pascal de Bruijn wrote:
> Aaah. It seems to build now. Though somehow HOSTTYPE detection goes
> wrong, but I guess that's probably wrong on my side of things :(
Hi,
I'll have a play with that, but it seems that uname doesn't
produce the same information as $OSTYPE and $MACHTYPE.
I don't think Jam has the same problem, just the shell scripts ?
> The argyll/jam install process does not seem to create the
> DESTDIR/PREFIX and DESTDIR/PREFIX/REFSUBDIR directory, it expects them
> to pre-exist, but in a packaging environment the install is done to a
> pristine directory. This is easily kludged around in the packaging
> code, though it would be nicer to have this done upstream as well.
I don't know why that would be the case. Install does a MakeLocate
on the target, which ensures that directories exist. It's used for
every file that gets created. Some simple trials indicate that it
seems to work, - I can see MkDir1 and Install rules running, and the
directory is created and populated.
What sort of output from Jam do you get when it fails ?
> I also noticed Jam "installs" License.txt into DESTDIR/PREFIX/bin,
> which is rather odd... a location like
> DESTDIR/PREFIX/share/doc/argyll/LICENSE would make much more sense.
> But then obviously DESTDIR/PREFIX/share/doc/argyll would have to be
> precreated as well :)
Maybe. But my view was that the license should accompany the things
it applies to - the executables. I wasn't really setting up a fully
fledged install hierarchy - just a very minimal installation for the case
where someone wants their executables somewhere separate from the source.
What sort of "install" directory arrangement would you prefer to see ?
> Unity does take some getting used too. Do mind there are little tabs
> on the bottom on the Unity main button "window", which allows you to
> browse installed applications (amongst other things).
I eventually figured out where to find the applications after a lot
of googling. It simply isn't discoverable any other way.
To discover it requires a series of unlikely steps:
Clicking on the dash item. The hover message tells you nothing
("what's a Dash ? This '-' is a dash in the computer context isn't it ?")
Frustratingly, it then shows some applications, ("what, is that
all Ubunu comes with ?"), but no obvious indication that there are
any more, or how to find them. Trying to guess their name in the
search is simply futile.
There are a series of mysterious symbols at the bottom, with
no hint as to why one should even glance in their direction -
all the action has been from the top left of the screen - that's
obviously the important bit. Bottom and right is obviously
rarely used detail. There is no hover hints at all for the symbols.
One has then to randomly guess that the icon that looks like
3 crayons (why crayons ?) is actually more applications.
Expanding "installed" then shows all the applications, but not
categorised in any way. You have to search linearly to locate
the kind of thing you are looking for.
In fact it seems that the applications have been deliberately
hidden - the most obvious discoverable place would be the main set of
menus along side "File" "Edit" "View" "Go" "Help" should be "Applications".
One could be forgiving for concluding that usability has been sacrificed
in the name of monetisation - Canonical want you to spend lots of time
fooling around in Dash, so they can shove advertising at you.
[ There seem to be numerous other usability problems with Dash,
but I won't go into them on this list. ]
> To be honest initially I wasn't too hot on Unity either, but to be
> honest I've gotten used to it, and I can't say I would prefer the old
> GNOME way per-se anymore.
I'm sure that much like the command line, it works fine when you
know what you want to do and how to do it. It wasn't a very
encouraging experience for a casual user, even one vaguely
familiar with many other GUI's.
> There is a control panel if you click the top-right icon (the
> gearwheel), and then select "System Settings", though that doesn't do
> service management, as that's considered to be a sysadmin task, I
> guess :)
That at least was discoverable - it's just that unlike most of the
other Linux installs I've played with on my test system, there's
no utility for managing services. For casual use, that's frustrating.
(First thing I want to do is make sure sshd is running, so I can
access it remotely from my main system.)
Cheers,
Graeme.
Other related posts:
