From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 4 12:25:18 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 6898C37B401 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from crucible.athame.co.uk (guru164.netsonic.fi [194.29.193.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1852743FAF for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:25:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@athame.co.uk) Received: from amavis by crucible.athame.co.uk with scanned-ok (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18g9d3-00047k-00 for ports@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:25:13 +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 18g9cj-00046d-00; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:24:53 +0200 From: Andy Fawcett To: Eric Anholt Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdebase3 Makefile Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:25:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Mikhail Teterin , Alexey Dokuchaev , Ollivier Robert , kde@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200302031235.h13CZwGB073669@repoman.freebsd.org> <200302042037.03489.andy@athame.co.uk> <1044388064.615.41.camel@leguin> In-Reply-To: <1044388064.615.41.camel@leguin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200302042225.15764.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 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