Steve,
I've read your very interesting mail at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html
What's your recommendation in the light of
http://freetype.org/freetype2/freetype-2.2.0.html
?
Werner
___
Freetype-devel
Perhaps we shall *rename* the library to, say, `libft2', instead of
`libfreetype', together with a new API prefix `FT2_' instead of `FT_'.
This would avoid the whole mess.
Or even `libft3' and `FT3_' ...
Werner
___
Freetype-devel mailing
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
What kind of problems would the version bump cause?
Indirect dependencies.
That's exactly what's described in this section:
http://plan99.net/autopackage/Linux_Problems#elf
Are we not bumping versions simply to force all applications to fix
their code rather
Hi Werner,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I've read your very interesting mail at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html
What's your recommendation in the light of
http://freetype.org/freetype2/freetype-2.2.0.html
Thanks
Dear FreeType developers,
I am involved with Xprint, an X11 extension enabling printing using the
X protocol [1].
Xprint uses FreeType2, but unfortunately its postscript driver uses the
internal freetype headers. You've written very clearly [2] that this
should not be done, and I would to take
Indirect dependencies.
That's exactly what's described in this section:
http://plan99.net/autopackage/Linux_Problems#elf
Yes. Note that the world is still spinning inspite of the horror
scenario painted there :-)
I can't think of many programs which actively use FreeType functions
on
