gerald at pfeifer.com
Thu Nov 25 15:57:52 CST 2004
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
>> 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
> No, I'm not requiring or forcing users to upgrade. I'm asking packagers
> (specifically those that target multiple distro's/OS'es or versions with
> a single package) to build with the most recent headers. Because that
> will result in the most functional Wine if recent lcms is available on
> a users' system.
I actually think we are in violent agreement, even if it might not seem
so at first sight. ;-)
There seem to be two issues here:
1) You argue that packagers should use a recent version if possible, and
I believe nobody objected.
2) On the other hand, there are also people compiling a FreeBSD port by
themselves, or just using CVS Wine. For these, ALSA approach that
Francois suggested seems to be a nice solution:
if test -z "$ALSALIBS"
echo "*** Alsa not detected. The winealsa.drv.so driver will be a dummy."
I certainly do not have a problem updating to a later version of lcms.
However, I'm also getting support inquiries from those users described
under item 2) above; that's why I'd appreciate a more gracious failure
> [FreeBSD Ports Collection]
> Don't they automatically fetch the latest version in that case? Or is
> the ports collection versioned and tied to the FreeBSD main version?
No, users won't automatically fetch the latest version of everything.
The Ports Collection itself is not tied to the FreeBSD main version,
but a surprisingly large number of users still does not seem to have
cheap/reliable Internet access and the use of CD-ROMs (which contain
the version of the Ports Collection at the time of the FreeBSD release)
is wide spread. Users might update to a more recent version of a specific
port like Wine, but not necessarily their whole collection of ports.
More information about the wine-devel