[argyllcms] Re: New Bug with Eye One Pro built against Ubuntu libusb
- From: "Frédéric Crozat" <fred@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:53:41 +0100
On Dec 22, 2007 9:12 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
You can check on
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/libusb/current/
ie
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/libusb/current/SPECS/
and
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/libusb/current/SOURCES/
but basically, it is 0.1.12 + specific fixes, most (if not all) from
Fedora, for specific issues.
We usually don't play with CVS snapshot (I know I prefer to backport
patches for prevent regressions) unless they are absolutely needed.
This is not the case of libusb.
> 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, and I doubt anyone
> from Mandriver is going to be running the regression
> tests against all the color instruments.
> (My experience with USB is that it rarely "just works".
> Many instruments need some tweak to get them to function.)
On the other hand, if you keep using your own patched libusb on Linux
(I really don't care about Windows or MacOSX), the situation won't be
going better for every user of libusb outside argyllcms.
By explaining why you did some changes on libusb and getting those
changes downstream (ie in distro), changes are higher code will
improve for everybody.
Moreover, as Nicolas stated for Fedora and I'll take for Mandriva,
shipping a forked libusb in argyllcms "distro" package is out of the
question. It might be easier for your own binary tarball, but it is a
pain for us. And I still think getting argyllcms packaged in
distribution will end as a improvement for argyllcms (and for users,
of course). (If lprof could use argyllcms itself and its own fork,
that would be my christmas gift, but I'm not sure it will happen
anytime soon..)
--
Frederic Crozat
Other related posts:
