Re: RFC: define FontLibSharedFreeType=NO
>>>>> In <[🔎] 20030608111430.GA17060@anthony.homelinux.net>
>>>>> Anthony Fok <anthony@thizlinux.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Does the same crash exists between libfreetype6_2.1.3-2 and 2.1.3-3? In
>> 2.1.3-4 (which I uploaded this morning), I tried to revert the change with
>> respect to PS_FontInfoRec (while going to CVS 2003-06-07), and I had been
>> wondering whether I did it correctly or not.
>>
>> My apologies for the troubles caused.
Ah..........Oops, soory.
I miswrote 2.1.4-2 as 2.1.4-3 and 2.1.4-3 as 2.1.4-4...
I'm talking about changes between libfreetype6_2.1.4-2 and -3.
I am sorry to make it get confused.
I've not checked libfreetype6_2.1.4-4 yet.
>> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
>> > >>>>> In <[🔎] 20030607181335.GY25454@deadbeast.net>
>> > >>>>> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 11:20:01PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
>> > >> > >> I got a report in private mail (grrr) from a person who ran into the
>> > >> > >> very problem you describe, so I appreciate you tracking this down and
>> > >> > >> fixing it. Your analysis looks reasonable and I agree with your
>> > >> > >> solution.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Sorry, I found my mistakes by my self.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1) PS_FontInfoRec was not changed between FreeeType 2.1.3 and
>> > >> > 2.1.4. It makes after FreeType 2.1.4 release (please see
>> > >> > freetype-2.1.4/debian/patches/001-freetype-2.1.4+cvs20030601.diff).
>> > >>
>> > >> If this is true, then, FreeType maintainer: *please stop doing this*.
>> > >>
>> > >> Debian needs to have FreeType packages that are compatible with the rest
>> > >> of the world's FreeType packages.
>> > >>
>> > >> Perhaps what we really need is a freetype-snapshot package, which ships
>> > >> a libfreetype6-snapshot package which Conflicts/Replaces/Provides:
>> > >> libfreetype6. For reasons that should be obvious, there should be no
>> > >> snapshot -dev package at all.
>> > >>
>> > >> Please, please, please, I beg of you, do not break binary compatibility
>> > >> in library packages.
>> >
>> > Humm, I found a message from Werner LEMBERG posted to
>> > devel@freetype.org. I believe libfreetype6 incompatible between
>> > 2.1.4-3 and 2.1.4-4.
>> >
>> > Application build with libfreetype6_2.1.4-4 (use PS_FontInfoRec)
>> > will crash with libfreetype6_2.1.4-3.
>> >
>> > Application build with libfreetype6_2.1.4-3 (use PS_FontInfoRec)
>> > will crash with libfreetype6_2.1.4-4.
>> >
>> > But SONAME is not changed yet (on upstream).
>> >
>> >
>> > >>>>> In <20030608.055428.57256597.wl@gnu.org>
>> > >>>>> Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > You might want to reconsider the change...
>> > >> >
>> > >> > * src/type1/t1tokens.h: Change italic_angle, is_fixed_pitch,
>> > >> > underline_position, and underline_thickness to pointers. Change
>> > >> > the type of the latter two to `fixed'.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > in current freetype6 without a change in version numbering of the shared
>> > >> > libraries.
>> > >>
>> > >> Our normal strategy is to increase the shared library version number
>> > >> right before a new release (as suggested by libtool). We will do
>> > >> that, of course, but not now.
>> > >>
>> > >> Is there a better strategy?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Werner
--
ISHIKAWA Mutsumi
<ishikawa@linux.or.jp>, <ishikawa@debian.org>, <ishikawa@netvillage.co.jp>
Reply to: