[argyllcms] Re: I seem to be losing the installed LUT in X or someting along those lines. Help!

  • From: Roland Mas <lolando@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:28:02 +0200

Graeme Gill, 2010-07-28 22:54:11 +1000 :


>> - a fix for FreeBSD portability:
> Hmm. Argyll V1.2.0 switches to a version of libusbV1, although it's
> possible to use libusb0.1 by setting the appropriate #define (see the
> Jamtop).  I mention this because libusbV1 doesn't currently have BSD
> support.

  Ah, damn.  Well, so much for Argyll on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD then (and
Debian GNU/Hurd, but I'm not sure many people will miss it there :-).

>> - a change in the path where Argyll looks for the Spyder2 firmware (so
>>   it complies with the FHS):
> I've made a similar change to where the i1pro/Munki calibration file
> gets stored, but I'm not sure I want to monkey with /var/lib, since
> this is rather system dependent. What I'm prepared to do is to follow
> the XDG Base Directory Specification, and allow it to be installed in
> $XDG_DATA_DIRS or $XDG_DATA_HOME. The latter would be chosen using
> an option to spyd2en.

  Yep, $XDG_DATA_DIRS with a fallback on $XDG_DATA_HOME sounds like a
good idea.

>> - a set of scripts to generate a *.deb containing said Spyder2 firmware
>>   and installing it in a FHS-compliant place; in places where several
>>   computers may need to use a Spyder2, this package can be installed on
>>   all without needing to move the driver CD along;
> I understand the convenience factor, but I'm not so sure that
> the device owner has the rights to do that with the firmware.
> Not my problem though :-)

  I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure I read the license
at the time I coded that and I didn't find it forbidding of putting the
file in a package, which has its uses even in the single-computer

>> - and the biggest part: a conversion of the build system to
>>   autoconf/automake.
> Sorry about that, but I chose Jam a long time ago, and it works
> well for me as a cross platform system. If I were choosing again
> now, I'd probably pick cmake.

  No worries, I was just listing it for completion.

>> too if you could integrate it.  Then there would be no functional
>> difference in the sources between your released code and the one in
>> Debian (and Ubuntu, since I think they just take my packages
>> unmodified).
> libusb is still (and will continue to be) an issue, if a version other
> than the one that comes with Argyll is used. usb is simply too fragile
> to rely on it working "out of the box". I've done my best to feed
> fixes upstream, but some may never be incorporated.

  1.1.1 packages in Debian use the libusb0 that comes with Argyll.  If
the patches to libusb1 that are not merged upstream aren't too
intrusive, I'll try feeding them to the libusb1 package maintainers;
otherwise I'll keep using the built-in version.

Roland Mas

Sauvez les castors, tuez les bûcherons.

Other related posts: