Re: XFree86 modularization

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 06:57:20AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> Torry,
> 
> > Sender: [email protected]
> > From: Torrey Lyons <[email protected]>
> > Here's a counter example: In recent history this would have caused
> > great difficulties on Darwin/Mac OS X with Freetype. Freetype is
> > largely only installed on Mac OS X as part of XFree86. Although
> > Freetype supports Mac OS X, the Freetype team has no committers with
> > a Mac OS X box. Until a few days ago you could not even build
> > standard Freetype on Mac OS X using gcc but had to use a proprietary
> > compiler. I do not mean to pick on the Freetype team--they do a great
> > job. Freetype has just had a different emphasis with regards to which
> > platforms they support. However, whenever XFree86 depends on an
> > external library that may not have the same level of support for all
> > the platforms XFree86 supports, you need to have XFree86 maintain a
> > local copy of the library.
> >
> 
> This cuts both ways: the version of Freetype shipped with XFree86 4.3 was
> badly buggy on rendering, and the fact that it was built and installed by
> default meant that when I was worrying about the rendering of Vera
> during its beta test, I had a broken version installed without being aware
> of it (as part of having installed XFree86 4.3).  The ensuing mess
> took me a couple days to sort out, discovering that the bad rendering
> on my screen was due to this buggy version distributed by XFree86.

Did the Freetype team make any noise about the bugs that were to be
shipped in XFree86 4.3.0 ? 

I know Juliusz monitors the CVS quite closely, I'd have just thought he'd
of shouted fairly loudly if this was a problem.

Alan.