[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: G-I - New challenge: dependency of pango on cairo



On Tuesday 20 December 2005 19:55, Dave Beckett wrote:
> Does that help?  I'm somewhat around at the moment to experiment with
> things.

Thanks for the pointer. Together with the hint from Attilio, I have 
created a brand new (temporary) package libcairo-directfb that only 
creates a udeb for libcairo compiled against directfb.
I have tested it in the installer and I've seen no problems either 
building or running it.

This new package is available from:
http://people.debian.org/~fjp/d-i/libcairo-directfb/

The package is based on Dave's libcairo package and has the same upstream 
source tarball.

My reasons for creating a new package were:
- the patch from directfb needed to be applied
- after that the configure script needed to be regenerated
- the udeb needs different configuration options
- cdbs currently has very limited support for building (u)debs with
  different configs

The udeb Provides: libcairo2 to satisfy the dependency from 
libpango1.0-udeb.

There is ongoing work upstream to integrate directfb support in cairo.
I also understand from Jeff that he has plans that will make it easier in 
cdbs to support building a package with different config options.
When this is done, we should be hopefully able to make the switch to a 
udeb from the main libcairo package.

I'd appreciate it if people could look over the new package and give me 
some feedback before I upload it.
Dave, do you see any objections or alternatives to this approach?

Cheers and thanks for all the help,
Frans


Configuration summary for the udeb
==================================
cairo will be compiled with the following surface backends:
  Xlib: no
  Quartz: no
  XCB: no
  Win32: no
  PostScript: no
  PDF: no
  glitz: no
  DirectFB: yes

the following font backends:
  FreeType: yes
  Win32: no
  ATSUI: no

and the following features:
  PNG functions: yes

Attachment: pgptgzZDwz1bl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: