To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52026
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 22 07:10:25 -0700 2005 ------- > If we make libfreetype a runtime prerequisite, shouldn't it be > explicitly mentioned in the system requirements ? Yes. The system requirement being a version of freetype that is known to work. > Does it still make sense to build the private copy during the build-process, > or can the source get removed as well? If a new major and binary incompatible release of freetype came out, OOo wouldn't be usable on systems using this new release... I don't think we should take any risk here. Getting a "known to work" version from the build process is not a problem compared to the risk of not running at all. > How should a UI installer behave if there is no libfreetype on the system? If the UI installer depends on some OOo components it better should have some nice bitmpaps that can explain the problem, because the text output won't work. UX needs to specify this. The more I consider the risk/benefit ratio of getting rid of the private version in order to get "cleaner packaging", the less I think this benefit is worth all the trouble. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
