[aur-general] Somebody using freetype2-infinality, too?
Hi, I've got issues with compiling a lot of software. My guess was, that I need to rebuild harfbuzz against freetype2-infinality to get rid of those issues, but actually building harfbuzz failed with the same error as all the other builds do [1]. The culprit seemingly is freetype2-infinality. I wonder if somebody using freetype2-infinality found a workaround this issue. Regards, Ralf [1] [rocketmouse@archlinux harfbuzz]$ makepkg -s ==> Making package: harfbuzz 1.4.2-2 (Sat Feb 4 11:00:42 CET 2017) [snip] In file included from /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftconfig.h:42:0, from /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/freetype.h:33, from hb-ft.h:35, from test-would-substitute.cc:44: /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftoption.h:690:0: warning: "TT_CONFIG_OPTION_SUBPIXEL_HINTING" redefined #define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_SUBPIXEL_HINTING ( 1 | 2 ) /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftoption.h:689:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition #define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_SUBPIXEL_HINTING 1 GEN libharfbuzz.la libtool: error: cannot find the library '/usr/lib/libharfbuzz.la' or unhandled argument '/usr/lib/libharfbuzz.la' make[4]: *** [Makefile:1407: libharfbuzz.la] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory '/tmp/fix/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz/src' make[3]: *** [Makefile:2432: all-recursive] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/fix/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz/src' make[2]: *** [Makefile:1325: all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/fix/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz/src' make[1]: *** [Makefile:498: all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/fix/harfbuzz/src/harfbuzz' make: *** [Makefile:430: all] Error 2 ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build(). Aborting... [rocketmouse@archlinux harfbuzz]$ pacman -Q freetype2-infinality freetype2-infinality 2.7.1-1
Re: [aur-general] Somebody using freetype2-infinality, too?
I believe infinality is dead now. I saw someone posted the other week about this new fonts meta package [1] that allows similar things, but all my remaining arch systems are headless these days, but I would give it a go rather than infinality now. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fonts-meta-base/
Re: [aur-general] Somebody using freetype2-infinality, too?
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Justin Dray wrote: > I believe infinality is dead now. I saw someone posted the other week about > this new fonts meta package [1] that allows similar things, but all my > remaining arch systems are headless these days, but I would give it a go > rather than infinality now. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fonts-meta-base/ This one can help: https://gist.github.com/cryzed/e002e7057435f02cc7894b9e748c5671
Re: [aur-general] Somebody using freetype2-infinality, too?
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:05:11 +0100, SanskritFritz via aur-general wrote: >On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Justin Dray wrote: >> I believe infinality is dead now. I saw someone posted the other >> week about this new fonts meta package [1] that allows similar >> things, but all my remaining arch systems are headless these days, >> but I would give it a go rather than infinality now. >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fonts-meta-base/ Thanks, for the moment I'll go with fonts-meta-base. >This one can help: >https://gist.github.com/cryzed/e002e7057435f02cc7894b9e748c5671
Re: [aur-general] Intellij IDEA Ultimate's
Reto Kaiser reto at retokaiser.com (Thu Feb 2 19:38:33 UTC 2017)
(Mailing list didn't accept my message, sorry for sending it again)
I've created the "-bundled-jre" version of the IDEA package after
discussion with the maintainer of the "-ultimate-edition" version
("uwolfer").
Some people want to have the bundled JRE, others would like to use a
system-wide installed JRE. The extra package "intellij-jdk" is not
guaranteed to be the same version than was shipped with the specific IDE.
Together with "pschichtel" we came up with yet another approach using
split- and meta-packages: The main package is
"intellij-idea-ultimate-edition" and depends on
"intellij-idea-ultimate-edition-jre-meta". This JRE meta package is not a
real package, but it is provided by two other packages:
- intellij-idea-ultimate-edition-jre-bundled: The JRE bundled with the
Jetbrains download.
- intellij-idea-ultimate-edition-jre-system: The default "java-environment"
package.
Code can be found here:
> https://github.com/njam/intellij-idea-ultimate-edition
I think it would be best to use this to create a single package
"intellij-idea-ultimate-edition". What do you think?
Regards
Reto
I personally prefer the flag thing mentioned by Leonidas (also, what I use in e.g.
nvidia-full-beta-all:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=nvidia-full-beta-all). The
"-meta" thing is a little...
I'd make the -no-jdk tarball the default, and whenever you change the _IntelliJ_JRE flag to
"1", you would automatically get the one with the bundled JRE (e.g. [[ -d
/usr/share/intellij-idea-ultimate-edition/jre/ ]]), until you'd set _(force_)system_JRE=1 (default
"0", which you'd otherwise never need to touch).
But that's also a little..."manual"... The cleanest solution may very well be
what we have now.
Det
