Re: XFree 4.2.1 + fontconfig-2

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:03:54 -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > 
> > --- Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:25:48 +0200, Alexander Gottwald
> wrote:
> > > > That is a windows problem. The XFree libraries are in fact
> > > versioned.
> > > > (libXaw.so.6.1 vs libXaw.so.7.0)
> > 
> > > Alexander,
> > > 
> > > You've hit a sore spot here. The issue of Xft1 vs Xft2 was only
> the
> > > starting of a larger picture.
> > > 
> > > Your right in the fact that all libraries are versioned, and we
> > > don't
> > > respect that for any library. libX11.a should really be
> > > libX11-6_2.a etc
> > > or some equivalent of.
> > > 
> > > We also need to consider backwards compatibility as to not
> break
> > > older
> > > applications.
> > > 
> > > I've fixed the immediate problem and can re-instate Xft1. But
> any
> > > want to pipe up with anything on this topic ?
> > 
> > Like it or not, if we make the switch we will break binary
> > compatibility.  This is, of course, because runtime libraries
> cannot
> > be symlinked on Windows.  Still, this is something that will have
> to
> > be done sooner or later (again perhaps for the 4.3.0 release?). 
> > However, I think the benefits in the longrun will outweigh the
> > incovience of a few questions from people caught in this switch. 
> > I'll let Harold voice his mind on this now...
> 
> We don't have to symlink - we can copy libX11-6_2.dll to libX11.dll
> etc
> to maintain compatibility and bug fixes to these kinds of
> libraries.

How about a seperate package call X11-compat for this?  Just seems
like a waste of space for people who don't care.

> But I think we really need to do this for 4.3.0 and just update the
> FAQ for those caught in the switch - like you say.

Sounds good to me.

I propose the following as an adaptation of the "generally accepted
naming conventions" used for native cygwin libraries [makes our X
libraries more unixy]:

----------
|libXfoo:|
----------

library name used on *nix: libXfoo.0.0.so


*for Cygwin:
============

runtime name:
-------------

"cyg" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." + "dll"
[i.e. cygXfoo.0.0.dll]


shared import name:
-------------------

A)"lib" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." + "dll" +
"." + "a"
[i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a]

B)Symlink A -> "lib" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + "dll" + "."
+ "a"
[i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a -> libXfoo.0.dll.a]

C)Symlink A -> "lib" + <basename> + "." + "dll" + "." + "a"
[i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a -> libXfoo.dll.a]


static import name:
-------------------
"lib" + <basename> + "." + "a"


final outcome:
--------------
/usr/X11R6/bin/cygXfoo.0.0.dll
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.0.0.dll.a
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.0.dll.a
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.dll.a
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.a


Just a thought, anyhow...

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com