Hi Werner and all,
Perhaps we shall *rename* the library to, say, `libft2', instead of
`libfreetype', together with a new API prefix `FT2_' instead of `FT_'.
This would avoid the whole mess.
Simply changing the library name is not going to change a lot of things
due to the way dynamic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Perhaps we shall *rename* the library to, say, `libft2', instead of
`libfreetype', together with a new API prefix `FT2_' instead of `FT_'.
This would avoid the whole mess.
Yeah, that and to keep binary compatibility a stub library could be
written
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 01:53, david turner wrote:
Perhaps we shall *rename* the library to, say, `libft2', instead of
`libfreetype',
Um this will break everybody's builds and will mean we can't have
something that builds with either 1.10 or 2.0 without fancy configure
scripting. I'm not sure
Perhaps we shall *rename* the library to, say, `libft2', instead of
`libfreetype', together with a new API prefix `FT2_' instead of `FT_'.
This would avoid the whole mess.
Or even `libft3' and `FT3_' ...
Werner
___
Freetype-devel mailing
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
What kind of problems would the version bump cause?
Indirect dependencies.
That's exactly what's described in this section:
http://plan99.net/autopackage/Linux_Problems#elf
Are we not bumping versions simply to force all applications to fix
their code rather
Indirect dependencies.
That's exactly what's described in this section:
http://plan99.net/autopackage/Linux_Problems#elf
Yes. Note that the world is still spinning inspite of the horror
scenario painted there :-)
I can't think of many programs which actively use FreeType functions
on
[discussion continued on freetype-devel only]
A new version which makes such a radical change should bump up the
shared object version (.so.N).
Where's the `radical change'?
That way we'll allow a transition period for applications to update.
This has been discussed recently on the
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
[discussion continued on freetype-devel only]
Sorry for that. I was to quick to press Send.
A new version which makes such a radical change should bump up the
shared object version (.so.N).
Where's the `radical change'?
Symbols which were previously
Have a look at
http://freetype.org/freetype2/freetype-2.2.0.html
which discusses some important issues with the forthcoming 2.2.0
release.
Werner
___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
