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

Re: libcairo2 in squeeze & subpixel rendering

On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 18:27 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> plain text document attachment (libcairo2 in squeeze & subpixel
> rendering.eml)
> Hi debian-devel,
> As we all know, squeeze is frozen now. This was a long awaited event,
> although for some importans software that we have in the distro it
> would be beneficial if this moment could happen later. One of such
> examples is libcairo2.
> The last release by ustream [1] is 1.8.10. At the moment we have this
> version in both testing and unstable. We also have 1.9.14 in
> experimental, one of the very important features of which is a proper
> support of fontconfig's attribute "lcdfilter" [2].
> [...]
> Thus, getting to the main point of this long e-mail: what are we going
> to do with libcairo2 in squeeze? If we keep it at 1.8.10, I think it
> makes sense to apply the above mentioned patch, because it has been
> accepted by upstream and tested for quite a long time by other
> distributions. Or are we going to wait for the next release of cairo
> that might happen any time before squeeze releases, and then push it
> into testig? This sounds less probable, knowing the usual Debian
> practices.

although cairo 1.10 is going to be released in a few days I don't think
we should get this into squeeze now as there are many changes that might
introduce regressions everywhere and I don't have the time to track them
all right now. Also, people reported problems with some video drivers
and in iceweasel recently.

(OTOH I personally have no problems with cairo 1.9.14 and for me there
are only improvements and I can't reproduce the bugs reported by others)

Backporting the lcdfilter patch to 1.8.10 might be a solution for
squeeze though. If someone wants to provide a patch that doesn't add any
new public API I'd be fine with applying it to the unstable package...
at least if the release team agrees.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: