[argyllcms] Re: New Bug with Eye One Pro built against Ubuntu libusb
- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:23:38 +0100
Le samedi 22 décembre 2007 à 19:12 +1100, Graeme Gill a écrit :
> Frédéric Crozat wrote:
> > How about supplying the patch you apply to libusb, one change per
> > patch with the explanation for each change. I know I'll happily merge
> > them in Mandriva libusb package.
>
> I'm not even sure that the Mandriva libusb is based on the same
> release that I'm using (0.1.12), and not a CVS snapshot instead.
> I'd need to at least know this, to be able to consider it.
The Fedora libusb is there
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=782
You can open the src.rpm with tools like file-roller or 7zip to check
what sources and patches we use.
> It still doesn't solve the basic problem though. If Mandriver
> is tracking upstream libusb changes,
> then I suspect it's far too easy for something to break,
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'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. In one year when all
the stuff which would have been taken care of naturally over time in a
classic FLOSS workflow is done, it will be business as usual but there
will be a painful adaptation phase.
BTW you should take a look as cmake, I hear it's good for producing
Linux/OSX/Windows binaries as you need to and it's definitely more
mainstream than jam.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Other related posts:
