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

  • From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:26:44 +1000

Richard Hughes wrote:
On 27 July 2010 15:27, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The situation is unfortunate, and I continue to be amazed at the
lack of respect that distro's show for the integrity of upstream
packages.

Put yourself in my shoes. Fedora is very strict about using external
libraries rather than internal ones, and I had to do quite a bit of
work to allow argyll to continue to be shipped in Fedora. I deal with
a lot of upstream projects in my day-to-day work and argyll is much
harder than most to package. Including 4 modified copies of external
libraries is not exactly best practice in software development. Using
a build system that's obsolete and needs patching before running is
kinda unusual. All these things raise the bar for pushing this to
millions of users.

Hi,

Sorry, but to me it is simply disfunctional behaviour - Fedora deserves to
fail if it puts dogma ahead of practicality. If the dogma ends up winning,
and it's a choice between Fedora shipping a buggy or feature incomplete
version of Argyll, or not shipping it at all, then my position is simple -
don't ship it at all - point people at the Argyll website instead (or a
distro that can see its way clear to shipping a fully working version).
You'll be doing everyone involved a favour.

All the changes are in the public git history with a SHA1 hash and the
date. Even the tarball has a new name to make it super clear.

Be that as it may, the information has demonstrably not been obvious
enough to stop people coming here with problems due to the Fedora modifications.
That makes it not prominent enough from my perspective.

If you're asserting your moral rights to prevent derived works under
the GPLv3 you might also want to contact a lawyer. I would ask you
contact the Red Hat or Fedora legal team if you have any further legal
issues.

My point about moral rights (see Wikapedia), is to assert the right to
the integrity of the work. Removing functionality, or making library changes
that will probably introduce bugs, could I think be interpreted as impinging on
the integrity of the work. This is mere speculation on my part, but it
fits well with what I see as the intention of moral rights, and I would hope
that it might give the Fedora legal eagles something to chew on, when
functionality is being materially affected by adherence to dogma.
Since you are the ones shipping the modified version, I don't think it's
my place to contact the Fedora legal team.

regards,

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: