MSCMS: new dll

[Robert Shearman]

Hans Leidekker wrote:

>On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:47, Robert Shearman wrote:
>  
>
>>Will we get into the same state as SHDOCVW where the DLL is essentially 
>>useless?
>>    
>>
>
>SHDOCVW needs the Mozilla based ActiveX control right? If I understand your
>question you're worried that because people don't have liblcms installed
>MSCMS will be useless. 
>

No. I am asking whether it will end up sitting there remaining 5% 
implemented (I think the 25% on the DLLs status page is a little 
generous) because no-one will have the time and expertise to implement 
the rest. Admittedly, this is different from SHDOCVW where it consists 
of many undocumented functions and interfaces.

>Well, I know liblcms is part of SUSE, Mandrake and
>Debian. It's not in Fedora Core but it is in Fedora Extras. 
>
>liblcms (LittleCMS) is only 384Kb so we could also consider statically 
>linking it, an option pretty much out of the question for the Mozilla
>based control. A third option would be to build LittleCMS as another dll
>(it support this), implement MSCMS on top of it, and simply ship that 
>as another Wine specific dll.
>  
>

It is not a problem if liblcms isn't installed as we could print a FIXME 
and return FALSE from PROCESS_ATTACH to get the same behaviour as before.

Rob