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
