On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:53 AM Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > I want to raise same concerns that David did in a thread a few > > months ago. > > > > I don't think a logging library is neither needed nor appropriate > > for FreeType. Werner, can you please summarize why you think this > > is a good idea? > > See > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2020-05/msg00148.html > > for example. > > It's not clear to me why there is so much concern. The logging > library stuff will stay optional as a debugging aid and not be part of > the default production version of FreeType. How could better logging > capabilities ever be a bad thing? >
The logic just doesn't fly. Logging libraries are used for collecting and filtering and storing logs *in production systems*. What you seem to want is better debugging facilities. That's it. You seem to be on the camp of "how can more stuff be a bad idea." More stuff *is* bad if those stuff don't serve a real purpose. Maintenance cost increase is real. Bloat is real. Complexity is real. FreeType needs *less* stuff, not *more*. Same about adding metafont stuff in. Same about how otvalid and gxvalid went in. It's pile of unused untested unneeded crap. FreeType needs to change focus. And I trust David to know what he's doing. And you are not listening to him either. -- behdad http://behdad.org/
