On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:29:13AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: >David Dawes wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:19:01PM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: >> >>>David Dawes wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:47:04PM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Not sure if this is the place for bugs, in fact i really think it's >>>>>xpert@xxxxxxxxxxx so i'll cc it to them too. >>>> >>>> >>>>>It might have been mentioned already but the cvs head is not up to date >>>>>with freetype2 2.1.7 Many XFT and freetype related source and header >>>>>files have #include <freetype/freetype.h> and other assorted headers >>>>>which is not how you use libfreetype anymore. You're supposed to >>>>>#include <ft2build.h> and then use macro includes for the various >>>>>headers. The new version of freetype2 also appears to have broken >>>>>compiling for lib/font/FreeType. I have no idea why there is a >>>>>duplication of many headers in Xfree86's source tree and so far changing >>>>>includes to be what they should be isn't fixing the these errors with >>>>>expected headers missing and what not. Is nobody else seeing these errors? >>>> >>>> >>>>Something like the attached patch should take care of most of it. >>>>Let me know if it works. >>>> >>>>Amongst some other complications, lib/font/FreeType has at least >>>>one dependence on a header that isn't exported (ttobjs.h), so >>>>building against an external version currently probably won't work >>>>as expected. Maybe that can be handled differently? >>>> >>>>The patch attached should address the other parts of lib/font/FreeType. >>>> >>>>David >>> >>> >>>Yea, most of this i'd already done. It seems that freetype2 2.1.7 does >>>not install ttobjs.h and it borks the install of the services headers by >> >> >> ttobjs.h isn't a public interface, so naturally it isn't installed. >> If we can avoid using it, that'd be good. But it's more important >> that our freetype backend works correctly at this point in the >> release cycle :-) >> >> >>>not putting them in a services directory. Upon fixing that. I come >>>across errors relating to the fact that headers with the same name as >>>freetype2's appear in the X cvs tree. Such as ft2build.h It appears an >>>old tree of freetype2 is in X which is really bothering me. Why is it >>>there and why do any of the source files include it via path directly >>>without any define anywhere to say not to use the system freetype2? I >>>know it's using those files over the system ones because if i delete a >>>common header i start getting build errors. This looks like either a >>>serious design flaw or a bug. If i go through the trouble setting a >>>truetype2 directory via host.cf it should use that and not the included >>>xfree86 tree. >> >> >> The patch I sent should fix that. If not, send the relevant build >> log info that shows the wrong ft2build.h file being used. > >well i'm not sure what "wrong" would be because i dont know when it's What you consider "wrong". :-) >supposed to use this local copy and when it's supposed to use the system >and why it even needs the system one at all. The system one is only used for the module freetype backend build. In fact last night I committed a change that moves it (and some other locally modified headers) to the module directory so they can't be used by anything else. In my build tests with the patch, it only uses the local ft2build.h in that case. That's why if you're seeing something different I need some specific details in order to follow it up. >>>I cant build X now even with the patch because of me refusing to let the >>>build use the local tree (removed it from extras). I cant find where you >>>specify FTSOURCEDIR which apparently X needs (why?) to point to my >>>current freetype2 build dir. >> >> >> Well, the build of the module version of the freetype backend is >> actually a build of freetype itself, hence it needs the freetype >> source rather than a freetype installation. This also means that >> it's fairly closely tuned to the version of freetype we're using. >> Don't expect that to work against an external source tree of a >> newer version without some tuning. >> >> The non-module freetype backend only requires ttobjs.h from the build >> tree, and editing lib/font/FreeType/Imakefile would allow that to >> find ttobjs.h from elsewhere. > >So what's the point of having "#define freetype2" if we're going to >build our own local copy of freetype2 anyway? Why link to any external >freetype2. So because one out of the 4 or 5 things that reference freetype2 ignores the external one, we shouldn't allow the external one at all? >> If you want to build against an external *installation* (not build >> tree) of a newer freetype version, then keep extras/freetype2 >> around, and that should work with the patch I sent, providing the >> public interfaces are backward compatible. That's what I thought >> your original email was about. If you want to go beyond that and >> use an external build tree so that nothing in xc/extras/freetype2 >> is ever used, then you're on your own for now, or you'll have to >> wait until after 4.4 is out, when we'll probably look at importing >> a newer version of freetype. >> >> David > >But why does xfree86 need to have it's own build of freetype2 when every >other userspace programs that use freetype2 just use the library >interface like they're supposed to? For instance, freedesktop.org's >Xserver links to freetype and doesn't require a build of it's own >freetype2 library locally, it links to the system one. If you build a non-modular XFree86 server, then you get exactly that. Add '#define DoLoadableServer NO' to you host.def. You don't get that for the (default) modular XFree86 server because nobody has done the work necessary to build an XFree86 "freetype" backend module that can request that an external freetype library be loaded on demand. Remember the backend font modules are loaded optionally by the modular XFree86 server, so modules that use specific external interfaces should cause those interface to get loaded as required rather than requiring the core XFree86 binary to be linked against all conceivable external interfaces in advance. Until that work is done, the freetype backend module needs to contain its own complete copy of libfreetype. Feel free to do the work necessary to correct this obvious anomaly :-). The ttobjs.h issue needs to be addressed one way or another too, either by findind an equivalent public interface, or creating an equivalent public interface, so that this user-mode program can do what it needs to do without knowing more about the freetype internals than it has any right to :-) David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list XFree86@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
