Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3B5B61CE.6010901@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:29:18 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: E <ecognito1 AT earthcorp DOT com>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Did some porting for cygwin
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20010722165317 DOT 00a07610 AT bastion DOT datatask DOT com DOT au> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20010723083425 DOT 00a7aa50 AT 192 DOT 168 DOT 1 DOT 1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

E wrote:

> At 12:36 PM 22/07/2001 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>> The cygwin-xfree people get justifiably upset when a "fork" like this 
>> happens (and make no mistake, what you're proposing is a fork -- or 
>> will become one once the inevitable version-skew happens).
> 
> 
> I think the mistake is on your part.  I am not proposing a fork.  I am 
> suggesting that the freetype package be contributed by cygwin-xfree into 
> the base set of packages for cygwin.  


Ah. It sounded like you wanted a freetype package, separate from what 
was distributed (already) by the cygwin-xfree people.  Sorry for the 
misunderstanding.

> If the answer to that is "it will 
> happen soon, just wait a bit" then that's fine. 


I *think* that is the current plan -- modulo splitting it out from the 
Xbin.tgz package and into its own "freetype" package.  If the 
cygwin-xfree folks don't want to do that, then it ain't gonna happen -- 
cgf has already given them veto power *specifically* over libfreetype. 
(Long story, go read the thread in cgywin-xfree mailing list archives)

> You could have said 
> that without the condescendence(tm).


Didn't intend to be so.  Sorry if it came across that way.

 
>> Besides, freetype is useless without the X libraries, anyway.
> 
> 
> Well, judging from the original email, it is at least useful for PHP, 
> which is not X based to my knowledge.  I know I've used it in another 
> application that was not X based.  So I guess it is not totally useless 
> with the X libraries, anyway.


<crotchety voice> Well, back in the day when I provided libfreetype-1 
<cough hack></crotchety voice>  from the CygUtils webpage, it did depend 
on X.  However, it appears that freetype-2 no longer does -- I just did 
a cygcheck on the latest libfreetype.dll from 
cygwin-xfree-4.1.0/Xbin.tgz, and it doesn't depend on any of the X 
dll's.  So, it looks like you're right -- my info was out of date.
   Sorry for the confusion.

--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/