Loïc Minier wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006, Dave Beckett wrote: >> I already said that I won't change/bloat the cairo+directfb udebs >> that are for the installer. They don't need PDF and PS support >> and do need lib/dev debs that match the udeb so that other udebs >> can be built against them, such as the gtk+directfb udeb. > > I agree that we don't need the PDF/PS support in cairo's udebs because > we don't need printing support in gtk's udebs, but since I can't easily > cut away printing support in gtk, I now need cairo udeb with PDF/PS > support.
This information seems the deciding point - you can't get rid of this requirement from building gtk. So... > I don't know whether it's an useful measure of the final real runtime > memory consumption, but the *.so sizes are: > 316K usr-nopdf/lib/libcairo-directfb/lib/libcairo.so.2.9.1 > 364K usr/lib/libcairo-directfb/lib/libcairo.so.2.9.1 > > which is a non-negligible 15% indeed. yes. But despite this, you need it. So as long as the debian-boot team realises this, I'm ok with adding it to the default cairo+directfb build; i.e. I will add the --enable-pdf and --enable-ps to the builds. >> Is this gtk bump is really required for the etch release? >> At this stage I'm not seeing why gtk+directfb is a priority to have >> versus having stability of libraries. > > That's a good question, but I think we at least need to try, and that > involves building stuff in experimental, and testing. > >> If necessary we'll have to make a 3rd rebuild of cairo. I'm wondering >> about having two source packages, one that builds the udeb+deb >> cairo+directfb minimal (which can be subjected to release freezes) >> and the other that builds the cairo/cairo+directfb with full features. > > That's a bit risky, but we can try; I guess we will immediately see > whether some symbols are missing. So what I propose is that I'll make some experimental packages with the PDF+PS enabled and you can try building with them. Although from your earlier emails, I expect this will just work since you've been trying this already. >> Or can I just enable directfb in the main cairo build? Do you really >> want a cairo with no X? > > I prefer the current approach; it bloats less DirectFB only apps. I > don't know any app which would benefit from a DirectFB+X cairo. OK. You replied in another email about embedded users of gtk, and I can see that as making this worthwhile to package and ship. Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
