Re: [Fink-devel] Unburying fontconfig and xft

[Max H. <ma...@qu...>]

Am 22.04.2011 um 23:23 schrieb "Daniel Macks" <dm...@ne...>:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:12:20 -0400, Daniel Macks  wrote:
> We've long had xft2-dev and fontconfig2-dev keep their headers and 
> libraries buried in subdirs so that they do not mask system (x11) 
> supplied versions of those same packages. [...]
>> Is it time to unbury these libraries?
> 
> Along the same "get out of the dark ages for probably no-longer-needed 
> compatibility situations that cause their own problems", should we also 
> scrap the static libs? X11 no longer ships them and keeping them 
> entails having some sort of inherited build-depends (vs relying on dyld 
> runtime linking). I vaguely remember some package or two checking for 
> libFOO.{a,so} as a ./configure test, so scrapping .a would make that 
> not work, but if it's hardcoded for "static or linux only" it's already 
> a bit broken?
> 

Indeed; and broken in a way that makes it easy to detect / notice the brokenness, and also to fix it. Whereas the current buried headers can cause lots of subtle irritation and confusion.

So I am all for it :-)

Max
> dan
> 
>  --
> Daniel Macks
> dm...@ne...
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fulfilling the Lean Software Promise
> Lean software platforms are now widely adopted and the benefits have been 
> demonstrated beyond question. Learn why your peers are replacing JEE 
> containers with lightweight application servers - and what you can gain 
> from the move. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfemails
> _______________________________________________
> Fink-devel mailing list
> Fin...@li...
> List archive:
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
> Subscription management:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
>