From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 4 10:37: 1 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB0A37B401 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from crucible.athame.co.uk (guru164.netsonic.fi [194.29.193.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB6843FA3 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:36:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@athame.co.uk) Received: from amavis by crucible.athame.co.uk with scanned-ok (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18g7wE-0003F7-00 for ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:36:54 +0200 Received: from vimes.int.athame.co.uk ([192.168.1.3] helo=zappa.athame.co.uk) by crucible.athame.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18g7w1-0003EJ-00; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:36:41 +0200 From: Andy Fawcett To: Mikhail Teterin , Alexey Dokuchaev , Ollivier Robert Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdebase3 Makefile Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:36:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: , ports@freebsd.org, anholt@freebsd.org References: <200302031235.h13CZwGB073669@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030204115646.GA95958@regency.nsu.ru> <200302041209.31495.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200302041209.31495.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200302042037.03489.andy@athame.co.uk> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 at crucible.athame.co.uk Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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