Hi, On 29/07/10 14:53, Roland Mas wrote:
Shared libraries actually help maintain a working system with a reasonable amount of work, and that's a practical advantage.
I don't see anyone arguing that shared libraries are undesirable, just that widely-distributed versions of particular shared libraries don't work reliably for Argyll's purposes, leaving a choice between shipping a custom version of a library, or shipping broken software.
The same applies for the build system: many people dislike autotools, but many people understand it
I kind of agree here - the idea that a package needs nearly 900k of shell script in order to build is bizarre, but it's tried and tested, and from a user-facing point of view, familiar. I think it's more often a case of "can get it to do roughly what they want" than "understand it" though! It certainly is in my case.
It does push some more work upstream, of course (pushing for integration of your patches into the libraries you forked), but it actually provides practical benefits:
Again, in an ideal world, yes. In reality, though, getting patches accepted upstream isn't always possible, especially when you're dealing with a technology as brittle as USB, and changes to make one device work cause others to break. (Logitech G15 keyboard and Pilot-link, if memory serves?)
Making it easier for the distro to ship an Argyll that's as close to the original as possible is good for everyone.
Agreed, but when there are significant barriers to doing so, is it better to ship an ugly-but-working package, or an elegant-but-broken one?
All the best -- Alastair M. Robinson