[argyllcms] Re: New Bug with Eye One Pro built against Ubuntu libusb

  • From: "Frédéric Crozat" <fred@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:15:05 +0100

On Dec 27, 2007 2:05 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> > This is how the game is played. There are pros and cons to each solution
> > but every distribution decided long ago letting each app manage its copy
> > of the libraries it needed was not an efficient resource use. It's a
> > logic which has been validated on thousands of software packages over
> > many years so there is little point going over it again now.
>
> I think you'll find that I can choose how I want to play this game.
> If I think it best to ship my own libusb as a way of ensuring that
> Argyll works reliably, then it's not hard to it in such a way
> that it cannot be trivially switched to using some other version.

You are of course free to do whatever you want with our software and
how you distribute it.
My comments are not written to tell you what you must do. They are
based on my experience as developper at Mandriva, where I've packaged
a lot of software for the last 7 years. And I can tell you

> [As far as I'm concerned this situation has analogies with the
>   "taint" flags maintained in the Linux kernel. If you're
>   running Argyll with a version of libusb I haven't qualified,
>   then it's likely I'm not going to be in a position to
>   trouble shoot it. My first piece of advice is likely to
>   be "recompile using the version of libusb I've provided,
>   and tell me if the problem still occurs".]

Taining kernel is only when using proprietary module where code is not
accessible. Let's keep civil and compare stuff which is comparable.

> > I'm afraid we have a bit of a culture clash. Argyll integration would be
> > nowhere this painful if it had been managed like 90% of FLOSS projects
> > instead of trying to follow one-of-a-kind rules.
>
> It's my itch, and I'll choose how to scratch it. I think the freedom
> provided by open source software is being perverted if it is now
> the situation that distributions are attempting to dictate "how things
> shall be done" to independent projects. I'm perfectly happy to try
> and accommodate reasonable requests to make life easier in packaging
> Argyll, but that doesn't mean I'll necessarily do everything asked,
> particularly if I don't agree with the reasoning behind it.

You are of course free to do whatever you want with our software and
how you distribute it.

My comments are not written to tell you what you must do. They are
based on my experience as developper at Mandriva, where I've packaged
a lot of software for the last 7 years (including openoffice when it
was first released as free software).

I'm just asking for a separate patch for the changes you did on libusb
with a changelog, so I could merge those changes in Mandriva libusb
package and a way to build argyllcms with system libusb and system
libtiff without having to patch it (that would be really helpful).
-- 
Frederic Crozat

Other related posts: