I've run into something of a problem involving the fontconfig library=
=20
whose correct solution is still something of a mystery to me.
I was happily compiling gimp-2.0 when a flood of undefined FC_WIDTH*=
=20
errors arose and halted my compile. Further investigation revealed th=
e=20
cause to be the inclusion of /usr/X11R6/include in the compile includ=
e=20
path in addition to /usr/include/. Each of these directories includes=
a=20
different fontconfig/fontconfig.h file. The X11R6 file came with my=
=20
XFree86 4.3.0.1 release which I compiled myself. It has this at the t=
op=20
of the file:
/*
* $XFree86: xc/lib/fontconfig/fontconfig/fontconfig.h,v 1.32 2002/10=
/11=20
17:53:03 keithp Exp $
*
* Copyright =A9 2001 Keith Packard, member of The XFree86 Project, I=
nc.
This file does not have the various FC_WIDTH* defines that gimp=
=20
needed to compile, but was found first, so it was what the compile wa=
s=20
using.
The /usr/include file came from the libconfig1 package in the Debian=
=20
testing distribution, but shared a header with the latest 2.2 fontcon=
fig=20
release from the fontconfig.org website.
/*
* $RCSId: xc/lib/fontconfig/fontconfig/fontconfig.h,v 1.30 2002/09/2=
6=20
00:17:27 keithp Exp $
*
* Copyright =A9 2001 Keith Packard
This was the file that included what I needed. I moved the X11R6=
=20
file out of the way and managed to get on with the compile. However, =
I'm=20
still confused by this. The latest file bears what seems to be a lowe=
r=20
version identifier 1.30 and an earlier date than the problematic X11R=
6=20
file.
I realize that you may not be able to dictate the versions of=
=20
fontconfig various distributions use, but I was confused by this head=
er=20
such that I didn't know what the correct course of action was. Should=
I=20
eliminate the X11R6 header that seems to lake newer features? But wha=
t=20
about the later date in the header?
What say you?
Thanks.
Goyo
