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.
If you want to make sure that users don't accidentally build Wine without lcms support you could modify configure.ac to print out a warning like we do for ALSA & co:
if test -z "$ALSALIBS" then echo "*** Alsa not detected. The winealsa.drv.so driver will be a dummy." fi
Ah, now you're talking. But for some reason I couldn't find those lines in my version of 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.
question is: with the threading / memory allocation issues, does Wine have a chance to run right on 4.x? If not and lcms is up-to-date enough in 5.x then supporting the old 1.09 is probably not a priority.
Last time I checked there was an lcms version 1.13 in FreeBSD ports.
-Hans