dlls/mscms/profile.c breakage

Vincent Béron vberon at mecano.gme.usherb.ca
Wed Nov 24 19:08:19 CST 2004

Le mer 24/11/2004 à 08:21, Hans Leidekker a écrit :
> 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 
> > non-functional.
> 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.

A packager has to target something (a distro, etc.). If your target has
lcms 1.09 as standard, you can't require to update it for all users if
the replacement version (1.13 or so) is not the standard one for that

Likewise, trying to force RH7.3 users to have alsa 1.0 or newer wouldn't
work: they're using RH7.3 (rather than a newer version) for a reason,
and it's most probably not so they have a lot of dependancies to update
to use one more current package (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.

I thought almost every lib used by Wine would be in ports then. I guess
ports can be considered as part of FreeBSD from a dependancies point of
view, it's the first place where FreeBSD users go fetch programs they
don't currently have.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list