Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/26/01:26:14
Soren Andersen wrote:
> Some time ago I found out that:
> AFAIK, libttf/FreeType _v1_ is *not* being made available by the cygwin/X11
> contingent. I have read some archived 'exchanges' concerning that ... but
> what's in Cyg/X11 now is Freetype **v2**, not v1 -- as many people may know,
> they changed the API significantly and some applications want only v1
> (haven't been rewritten to the FreeType2).
All of this is true.
> IMO, again, you need not have /
> should not have pulled FreeType v1 from the downloads on your site.
but I didn't. I just moved it to the "obsolete" pile. It's still there
-- just go to cygutils and scroll down to the "Obsolete Packages" list,
and click on the freetype-1.3 link. So it's there -- but it's
unsupported. Use at your own risk. If somebody wants to take my "port"
of freetype-1.3 and somehow harmonize it with cygwin-xfree, then *I*
have no objections (and I couldn't stop you even if I did). In its
current form, the freetype-1.3 package at cygutils, AFAIRC, stomps all
over the freetype2 stuff in cygwin-xfree. Bad.
Also, I imagine that if someone were to
(a) dll-ize freetype-1.3 (patches and howtos for this are on the
freetype page at cygutils -- BUT those are obsolete). It would be
better to rework my freetype-1.3-dll patches to follow the pattern in,
for example, the readline package, instead.
Note that there are rumblings that the procedure for building dll's on
cygwin may soon be streamlined -- especially for libtool-based packages
like freetype. So, even if one updates my "current" freetype-dll
patches to reflect the more modern approach (e.g. readline) -- even THAT
may soon be "obsolete" -- the new "old" way of building dll's.
(b) harmonize this new freetype-1.3 with cygwin-xfree, so that it is NOT
used by default unless you REALLY REALLY want to, and doesn't stomp on
the cygwin-xfree-freetype2 files,
(c) create the package so that it installs (harmoniously) into the
/usr/X11R6/{bin,lib,include} subtree (NOT /usr/{bin,lib,include})
(d) obey the "new" dll, import lib naming convention, and the
FREETYPE_EXPORT(), FREETYPE_STATIC, ALL_STATIC #define methodology (e.g.
my readline example, again).
(e) talk to the cygwin-xfree folks about contributing a "freetype-1.3-X"
package *to cygwin-xfree*, rather than to cygwin.
Then I think that would be well recieved by the cygwin-xfree folks.
After the initial knee-jerk negative reaction <g>.
However, I have no intention of doing all this.
> I
> dislike seeing sincere and hard-working volunteers like yourself dissed and
> discouraged in your efforts based on some other people's egotism and /or
> sense of territoriality or bureaucratic rigidity.
Give the guys on cygwin-xfree a break. Some of my ports were making
their job harder. Why should *I* put in extra hours, just to provide
something they are already providing -- when sticking my oar in actually
hurts them?
The same argument goes in reverse w.r.t. zlib -- why should they provide
a private zlib.dll when I support an official cygwin-zlib package that
contains a dll?
(Don't worry folks -- these issues have already been amicably resolved;
PLEASE don't harass me or the cygwin-xfree folks over the preceeding two
paragraphs)
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -