Thread: [Lcms-user] Abandoning lcms v1?
An ICC-based CMM for color management
Brought to you by:
mm2
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2014-03-17 16:38:19
|
GraphicsMagick has continued to support lcms v1 even though v2 is clearly superior. I am thinking about abandoning support for lcms v1. What is the consensus among developers of free software packages supporting lcms (as well as OS distribution maintainers)? Can lcms v1 now be safely ignored with the expectation that lcms v2 will be made available? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ |
From: Richard H. <hug...@gm...> - 2014-03-17 16:41:44
|
On 17 March 2014 16:38, Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> wrote: > What is the consensus among developers of free software packages > supporting lcms (as well as OS distribution maintainers)? Can lcms v1 > now be safely ignored with the expectation that lcms v2 will be made > available? lcms1 has known security issues and IIRC Marti said it's basically a dead branch. At least from my point of view, I've got a hard shared dep on lcms2 on all my stuff. Richard |
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2014-03-17 16:49:55
|
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 17 March 2014 16:38, Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> wrote: >> What is the consensus among developers of free software packages >> supporting lcms (as well as OS distribution maintainers)? Can lcms v1 >> now be safely ignored with the expectation that lcms v2 will be made >> available? > > lcms1 has known security issues and IIRC Marti said it's basically a > dead branch. At least from my point of view, I've got a hard shared > dep on lcms2 on all my stuff. I am mostly worried about stable OS distributions which might not be able to replace lcms v1 with v2 because other software still in the distribution does not support it. These distributions might be applying security patches to v1 or they might be ignoring that problem. Has this time has passed? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ |
From: Richard H. <hug...@gm...> - 2014-03-17 16:51:31
|
On 17 March 2014 16:49, Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> wrote: > I am mostly worried about stable OS distributions which might not be able to > replace lcms v1 with v2 because other software still in the distribution > does not support it. At least in Fedora and all the other environments I know of, lcms1 and lcms2 are parallel installable. Richard |
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2014-03-17 16:54:00
|
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 17 March 2014 16:49, Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> wrote: >> I am mostly worried about stable OS distributions which might not be able to >> replace lcms v1 with v2 because other software still in the distribution >> does not support it. > > At least in Fedora and all the other environments I know of, lcms1 and > lcms2 are parallel installable. But they can't both safely exist in the same application at the same time. If they do (e.g. due to implicit library dependencies), something likely goes "boom". Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ |
From: Richard H. <hug...@gm...> - 2014-03-17 16:58:03
|
On 17 March 2014 16:53, Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> wrote: > But they can't both safely exist in the same application at the same time. > If they do (e.g. due to implicit library dependencies), something likely > goes "boom". Ohh I see what you mean .Isn't this what -Bsymbolic is supposed to fix? Are you aware of any lcms1-only libraries out there? From a Fedora point of view, it's only really wine left to port. Richard |
From: Elle S. <ell...@ni...> - 2014-03-17 17:16:51
|
On 03/17/2014 12:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > GraphicsMagick has continued to support lcms v1 even though v2 is > clearly superior. I am thinking about abandoning support for lcms v1. > > What is the consensus among developers of free software packages > supporting lcms (as well as OS distribution maintainers)? Can lcms v1 > now be safely ignored with the expectation that lcms v2 will be made > available? > > Bob > Ubuntu effort to remove dependence on lcms1: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lcms/+bug/885324 The thread starts in 2011, is still active in 2014. |
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2014-03-17 17:46:01
|
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Elle Stone wrote: >> > Ubuntu effort to remove dependence on lcms1: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lcms/+bug/885324 > > The thread starts in 2011, is still active in 2014. This is very useful. I notice that there is still a lot of activity up to the end of this past year and that some 'important' software is still not successfully switched to v2. Some packages don't have an active upstream maintainer so patches need to be independently developed (or discovered). Perhaps the patch is submitted to the upstream maintainer so it might be included in a future release. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ |
From: James C. <cl...@jh...> - 2014-03-19 19:39:27
|
>>>>> "BF" == Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> writes: BF> What is the consensus among developers of free software packages BF> supporting lcms (as well as OS distribution maintainers)? I've only paid attention to a subset of distributions on that front, but each of them wants to remove lcms1. -JimC -- James Cloos <cl...@jh...> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |