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

Bug#261854: marked as spam Bug#261854 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#261854: xlibs: some softlinks not made correctly, installer fails to upgrade)

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:05:39AM -0400, John D. Hendrickson wrote:
> sorry if this is a double reply (this time, reply-all)
> As said in first reply, I disagree.
> NOTE: libXft2 is not some Xft replacement.  It is written by Keith 
> Packard and installed to /usr/X11R6/lib/ by default: not /usr/lib.

Yet Debian installs it to /usr/lib. Please do your homework.

> None of XFree86, Debian, KDE, nor Gnome has moved their compiles to 
> point to /usr/lib.  They shouldn't on a linux system.

freedesktop.org is moving towards doing so.

> Below is a snipet from gnome.org's bugzilla.  Dated '2002 bug the same 
> problem - up to at least '2003 there are dup reports of it.
> And can we thank Redhat?  Likely so.  What do we be it isn't broken in 
> their $$ version of linux?  I've have previous experiences with 
> reporting bugs to Redhat.  A broken ps and a refusal to fix or accept 
> code comes to mind.

Please kick your rants out of our BTS.

> Only package gtk does this: and only for ONE of the xlibs.  Which is 
> likely an oversight.
> if test $pango_omitted_x_deps = yes ; then
>     # Old versions of Xft didn't necessarily include -lX11 in the output
>     x_libs="`pkg-config --libs xft` -lX11 $X_EXTRA_LIBS"
>   fi

... this is a completely different problem. This just compensates for
the fact that some versions of libXft did not link against the libX11
shared library, and is not Red Hat's fault, nor Debian's, nor XFree86's.
What exactly does this have to do with the bug report?

> Sat Mar  2 14:32:50 2002  Owen Taylor  <otaylor@redhat.com>
>         * configure.in: Default to --disable-gtk-doc (avoid Jade
>         breakage) and --disable-static (static linking causes
>         problems with Xft changes.)
> * GTK+-2.4 now requires version 2 of Xft; old fashioned core X
>   fonts are no longer supported.
> * Try to build libraries with only shared library dependencies on Xft to
>   deal with transition to Xft2 [Owen]
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Now I see.  libxft2 is the new lib, which installs to /usr/lib since it 
> has nothing to do with XFree86.

... no.

libXft2 is the new lib. XFree86 distribute it. So do X.Org.

However, its upstream is freedesktop.org.

> gtk's pango support was adjusted by Redhat to be incompatible with 
> XFree86, to use only libxft2.
> WAIT...
> That still doesn't explain why I got the message about libXft to begin with.

You. Have. Not. Told. Us. What. Message. You. Got.


How do you expect us to fix a bug if you don't tell us what it is?

> Below, we see /usr/lib/libXft directly, which is wrong.  A damn 
> peritious thing.  Difficult to find how it *became* that way.

No, it's not wrong. It's good.

You keep saying it's wrong, but then you can't back it up, and you keep
telling me to go do my research and stuff.

> If you look *carefully* you see /usr/lib/libXft.so is mentioned as an 
> absolute filename.

... yes? And? What's your point?

> If you then look at the blabber of Redhat "coder" in the snippet of 
> Changelog above you see the magic.  There is talk about problems with 
> temporarily having to meantion libXft directly.  Ahh.

I'm sorry, but Owen is incredibly clueful. So far you've pasted a bunch
of irrelevant, incoherent 'bug reports' which don't actually give any
details about supposed bugs that may or may not exist, and made false

> Am I good?  Or does Redhat suck?   Ha ha....

I know what conclusions I drew.

> gtk/libgtk-x11-2.0.la:dependency_libs=' 
> /mnt/hda4/hog/tmp/gnome/gtk+-2.4.3/gdk/l
> ibgdk-x11-2.0.la -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lXrandr -lXinerama -lXext -lXft 
> -lfreetype -l
> z -lXrender -lfontconfig 
> [jesus; half the other libtool libraries on the system snipped]

Um, you do know that these are generated dynammically by libtool, right?

Daniel Stone                                                <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: