Hi again, Am Donnerstag, den 14.07.2016, 17:18 +0100 schrieb Peter Jonas: > Freetype is included because not included for convenience. It is > included because MuseScore's code has been tailored towards a > specific > version of Freetype and other versions of Freetype have been known to > cause problems in the past.
hm, I still don't really buy this argument. Some more thoughts on this matter: 1) Debian Policy should always have top-priority for decisions to be made regarding software that is maintained in Debian. If "but upstream may complain" is reason enough to grant an exception from Debian Policy, then we may sooner or later end up with more exceptions than rules. 2) We should ask ourselves *why* upstream is embedding libfreetype. If they want the best font rendering result for their users, please feel certain that Debian wants to achieve the same result with its own library package. I don't see why musescore is so much more tied to a specific font rendering library version than other more complex applications. And if it is, this somehow tastes like bad practice. 3) We should ask ourselves *what* upstream is actually embedding. If they are embedding a pristine copy of libfreetype, I don't see any problem with using Debian's version either. If they are embedding a modified version with non-upstreamed changes, they are actually creating a fork. Are we as the pkg-multimedia team in a position to maingain a fork of a library such as freetype for the sole purpose of being used in one single package? Also, please keep in mind that for some time especially freetype could have been used to sneek in potentially patented font rendering code paths -- although I am not saying that this is happening here or has ever happened at all. Cheers, - Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
