Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:25:15 +0200 From: Andy Fawcett <andy@athame.co.uk> To: Eric Anholt <anholt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, kde@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdebase3 Makefile Message-ID: <200302042225.15764.andy@athame.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1044388064.615.41.camel@leguin> References: <200302031235.h13CZwGB073669@repoman.freebsd.org> <200302042037.03489.andy@athame.co.uk> <1044388064.615.41.camel@leguin>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 21:47, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 10:36, Andy Fawcett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 February 2003 19:09, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > > [ Moved to -ports, -kde ]
> >
> > [Talking about Xft2, and speaking for myself, not kde@]
> >
> > > There are two substantial benefits in hacking it into
> > > XFree86-4-libs:
> > >
> > > . the usual X-clients (XTerm, etc.) will use it too,
> > > reducing run-time RAM usage, by sharing more libraries
> > > with Qt-based programs;
> > > . none of the Xft2 aware software will need the -lXft to -lXft2
> > > and Xft.h to Xft2.h patching -- the Mozilla with whatever
> > > GNOME/GTK will just work.
> > >
> > > Kind of like the freetype2 dependency currently in
> > > XFree86-4-libs... The only reason not to do it, IMHO -- Eric's
> > > call -- is that 4.3.0 may be out soon...
> >
> > And, IMO, we should wait for it to be there, to save quite a few
> > hassles. Why patch several ports to handle the current (broken)
> > situation, when they would need to be unpatched once 4.3.0 is out?
>
> Because I don't see 4.3.0 as necessarily being the time for the
> unrenaming to happen. I would stop/fix Xft1 building in XFree86
> 4.2.0 today, I think, if we could get Xft1-using ports to not break
> with Xft2.
That sounds like a good plan to me, if it's possible
> So, it would be valuable for someone to find the ports that use Xft1
> and break when using Xft2 without our renaming patches. To do that,
> remove all the existing Xft files (X11BASE/include/X11/Xft,
> lib/libXft*), remove the patches from Xft port and install it, then
> try building any ports that use Xft.
Big task, I suspect.
> Gnome's pango breaks, as I found out when I tried this, what else?
Pango 1.1.1 (we have 1.0.5, IIRC) builds against Xft2, at least on some
platforms. If RH can manage it (there's apparently a couple of minor
patches against the pango source), I'm sure our friends at gnome@ can
do it better. And no, I was not being sarcastic at all there.
Of course, I have no idea how many ports build against Xft, either
version, so I don't know just what will be affected. Sooner or later
though, we'll find out...
And, I find myself agreeing with mi, the ports cluster would quite
possibly be the best place for this to be tested. Now, who do we bribe
to let us try that? ;)
Regards,
Andy
--
Andy Fawcett | andy@athame.co.uk
| tap@kde.org
"In an open world without walls and fences, | tap@lspace.org
we wouldn't need Windows and Gates." -- anon | tap@fruitsalad.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302042225.15764.andy>