Hi :) On 27/07/10 08:27, Florian Höch wrote:
I really wonder why on earth they did this? I feel sorry for Graeme. After all the libusb stuff I was really hoping distros would give him a break...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Forking ArgyllCMS and shipping a version with major modifications is fine, omitting functionality is fine, but doing either of these things and calling the package "ArgyllCMS" seems to me to be discourteous at best, especially when it appears that attempting to use the missing functionality just fails silently, without any error message.
Just calling the package "ArgyllCMS-Abridged", or "ArgyllCMS-NoUCMM" or anything to distinguish it clearly from the "real thing" would make a big difference, but right now this change reflects badly upon the whole project, which is most unfortunate when everyone involved is doing such amazing work in improving the general state of Linux colour management.
All the best -- Alastair M. Robinson