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
distro.
No, I'm not requiring or forcing users to upgrade. I'm asking packagers
(specifically those that
On Thursday 25 November 2004 02:08, Vincent Béron wrote:
A packager has to target something (a distro, etc.). If your target has
A packager could target a single distro and version, like you seem
to do. A packager could also target multiple versions of the same
distro (like Ivan does) and a
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 14:07, Francois Gouget wrote:
What I meant is that we should check for one of these new APIs that we
need, and if we don't find it we should just do as if lcms.h was
missing.
Yes of course, I meant that too, and we should do
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
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
What I meant is that we should check for one of these new APIs that we
need, and if we don't find it we should just do as if lcms.h was
missing.
Yes of course, I meant that too, and we should do that. But you presented
this as a better solution for
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
[...]
Right, that's a very old version from 2001. Since then the number of APIs
has nearly doubled:
[...]
I'm sure we will be needing many of those newer APIs. Is there any
chance for you to upgrade your lcms.h to 1.13?
A better solution would probably be
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 10:21, Francois Gouget wrote:
I'm sure we will be needing many of those newer APIs. Is there any
chance for you to upgrade your lcms.h to 1.13?
A better solution would probably be to check for one of the newer APIs
in configure.ac (or the LCMSICCPROFILE
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 10:21, Francois Gouget wrote:
I'm sure we will be needing many of those newer APIs. Is there any
chance for you to upgrade your lcms.h to 1.13?
A better solution would probably be to check for one of the newer APIs
in
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 14:07, Francois Gouget wrote:
What I meant is that we should check for one of these new APIs that we
need, and if we don't find it we should just do as if lcms.h was
missing.
Yes of course, I meant that too, and we should do that. But you presented
this as a
On Monday 22 November 2004 09:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
gmake[2]: Entering directory `/.amd_mnt/nashira/files5/test/wine/dlls/mscms'
/sw/gcc-3.3.4/bin/gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include
-D__WINESRC__ -D_REENTRANT -fPIC -Wall -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
On Monday 22 November 2004 12:15, you wrote:
/usr/local/include/lcms.h, coming from a package called lcms-1.09.
Right, that's a very old version from 2001. Since then the number of APIs
has nearly doubled:
$ grep LCMSAPI tmp/lcms.h | wc -l
88
$ grep LCMSAPI /usr/include/lcms.h | wc -l
162
I'm
The following change to dlls/mscms/profile.c
revision 1.6
date: 2004/11/21 15:48:18; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +135 -3
Implement and test GetColorProfileElementTag,
GetCountColorProfileElements and IsColorProfileTagPresent. Stub
GetStandardColorSpaceProfile{A,W}.
breaks
12 matches
Mail list logo
