Re: FreeType lib, Cygwin/X11 project, users loose?

["Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

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/