Date: 04 Feb 2003 09:10:36 -0800 From: Eric Anholt <anholt@FreeBSD.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Alan Eldridge <alane@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/kdebase3 Makefile Message-ID: <1044378636.615.10.camel@leguin> In-Reply-To: <200302031408.14342.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200302031235.h13CZwGB073669@repoman.freebsd.org> <200302031408.14342.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 11:08, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Qt-3.1 can be configured with ``-xft'' and with very minor patching will > build against Xft2. Do we want such a thing? I have it built that way, > and the characters seem to look better on my screen. > > Will our next XFree86-4-libraries provide Xft2 instead of Xft? It would be best if QT could use Xft2, as that's the future. In stock XFree86 4.3, Xft1 programs compiled against it use the Xft2 library. The backwards compatibility is not perfect, so for now we will continue to have libXft2.so.2. In stock XF86, it's called libXft.so.2 and there's a binary-compatible Xft1 library at libXft.so.1 which nothing new ends up using. The current XFree86 4.3-pre ports I'm working on continue with the libXft2.so.2 system we've had. Hopefully by the time 4.3 hits the tree we'll have the Xft1 programs with problems converted to Xft2 or fixed, so they can work without the renaming of libraries/includes that we currently do. The Xft2 port will continue to exist. I think the more we keep these libraries split from being a monolithic build, the better. -- Eric Anholt eta@lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1044378636.615.10.camel>