Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:36:52 +0200 From: Andy Fawcett <andy@athame.co.uk> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Cc: <kde@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, anholt@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdebase3 Makefile Message-ID: <200302042037.03489.andy@athame.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200302041209.31495.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200302031235.h13CZwGB073669@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030204115646.GA95958@regency.nsu.ru> <200302041209.31495.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?
> On Tuesday 04 February 2003 04:17 am, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> = According to Mikhail Teterin:
> = > Qt-3.1 can be configured with ``-xft'' and with very minor
> = > patching will
> = In fact, -xft is on by a default.
>
> It is. But without patching it will include Xft.h and link with -lXft
> ignoring the Xft2.
Because Xft2 is broken, for exactly the reasons you state below...
> Because Xft2.h and -lXft2 are FreeBSD's own -- the
> rest of the world does not have them, AFAIK.
Okay, it works, for ports that are patched to use these renamed
headers/libraries, but is that really the way to go? Once Xft2 is
officially part of XFree86, will these ports need to be unpatched? I
think they will, and that's not really a good thing for anyone.
And if we do patch Qt to use Xft2, does that mean that Xft2 is a
dependency for it? Or would the patch take care of the situation where
the end user doesn't have, or even want, Xft2 on their system? More
knobs in the port Makefile, and more chance to DTWT.
Maybe Eric can give us some sort of (unofficial) timescale that we would
have to wait for the newer version, and this discussion might well
become totally pointless ;)
As I said at the top, I'm speaking for me, not kde@, but I personally
think we should wait.
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?200302042037.03489.andy>