>> > As AGO pointed out, searching for libfreetype.dll is non-portable, >> > dangerous, and silly. >> >> Not me, who is doing that, but one large SW open-source library. >> Therefore it is clear, that it have to link with other libraries in the >> system that it is using. > > Right, but that doesn't make the current approach any less dangerous, > non-portable, or silly. [...]
I see, we have different opinions in this point. But I am not interested in discussion about them. > A rejoinder question, though: if you're buidling a native Win32 > application, why not use the native build of freetype as well? Good point. But the things behind are more complex and avoiding to use this, so I will not write about them. There is only one thing I have to mention and what agrees with your words: In final release of my app, the freetype should be included, just to avoid problems with other dlls. John