[Lcms-user] mscms: Use lcms2, when available [try 2]
marti.maria at littlecms.com
Mon Jun 3 18:36:27 CDT 2013
That's Marti Maria, lcms author.
I would be glad to know which functionality you miss in lcms2. I tried
hard to make
lcms2 complete enough to be a superset of lcms1 but is quite probably I
Regarding icc34.h, I would avoid that because licensing issues and more
because portability issues. All yous should need is lcms2.h and maybe a
couple of #defines
for tag names. Again, please let me know about the individual problems
you would have.
> (specifically cmsReadRawTag and cmsWriteRawTag don't do what we want),
Ops, so I did something wrong. These functions were in the API to
and JDK APIs. Could you please elaborate what the issue is?
Thanks again for using lcms.
El 04/06/2013 0:48, Detlef Riekenberg escribió:
> Hans wrote on Monday, 3. June 2013 at 10:30
>> On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 22:49 +0200, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
>>> import the unchanged icc34.h from the lcms (v1) dev. package.
>>> (Do we need to add a Wine LGPL licence header for icc34.h?)
>>> The plan is to remove this include, when changing Wine
>>> to use the new getter/setter functions of lcms2
>>> (After the release of Wine-1.6)
>> My plan was to switch to lcms2 soon *after* the release of Wine 1.6.
> My plan was to find a way to increase the user experience and provide
> lcms2 support out of the box for the stable Wine release.
> Alexandre, do you see a chance for lcms2 support for Wine-1.6 (out of the box)?
>> I studied the API some more and my conclusion is that while it doesn't have all
>> we need (specifically cmsReadRawTag and cmsWriteRawTag don't do what we want),
> rc1 for lcms2 v2.5 was just released:
> What does Wine need from lcms / for cmsReadRawTag and cmsWriteRawTag?
> I added lcms-user at lists.sourceforge.net for this mail.
>> we can avoid importing the icc34.h header.
> Hans, you found a way to change Wine to use getter/setter functions
> while still linking to lcms v1 and than switch to lcms2?
> Please confirm, that you think, that this is a working transition variant.
> (I must admit, that I didn't studied the lcms2 API deep enough).
>> I'm not in favor of adding temporary workarounds. If distributions want to
>> drop support for lcms1 in 1.6 I'd suggest that they backport the patches.
> Adding icc34.h is a variant for a transition to lcms2 without much effort,
> while knowing, that this work, but doesn't look beautiful.
> Fletching out our mscms header (similar to a stripped down icc34.h),
> to allow our current code to compile without icc34.h and link
> to lcms2 is another possible transition variant.
> Should we spend that time/effort, when we expect, that the added code is
> no longer needed after updating Wine to use the lcms2 getter/setter functions?
More information about the wine-devel