hans at it.vu.nl
Wed Nov 24 07:21:24 CST 2004
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 13:13, Francois Gouget wrote:
> I do think it's a better solution. Just like it's better to let Wine
> compile even if the ALSA development libraries are not installed or
> obsolete, eventhough the resulting winealsa is going to be
Agreed again about making it at least compile. But that's not the issue
I was talking about. My concern is packagers like Gerald that may be building
suboptimal packages because they don't use the latest development headers.
> If you want to make sure that users don't accidentally build Wine
> without lcms support you could modify configure.ac to print out a
> warning like we do for ALSA & co:
> if test -z "$ALSALIBS"
> echo "*** Alsa not detected. The winealsa.drv.so driver will be a dummy."
Ah, now you're talking. But for some reason I couldn't find those lines in my
version of Wine.
> A related question is which version is normally shipped on FreeBSD (and
> I guess that's likely different for 4.x and 5.x). I guess that for 4.10
> this is 1.09 but for 5.x it's probably a more recent version. Next
I don't think lcms is shipped with FreeBSD is it? It's in the ports
collection. I'm no FreeBSD expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
> question is: with the threading / memory allocation issues, does Wine
> have a chance to run right on 4.x? If not and lcms is up-to-date enough
> in 5.x then supporting the old 1.09 is probably not a priority.
Last time I checked there was an lcms version 1.13 in FreeBSD ports.
More information about the wine-devel