[Xorg] CVS HEAD -- ftfuncs.c:931: error: structure has no membernamed `find_sbit_image'
eta at lclark.edu
Fri Jul 30 11:15:39 PDT 2004
On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 10:57, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 04:04, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 20:49 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Things slow down (a lot) for some fonts when used as core fonts" is
> > > > > *far* better than "The build fails for almost all of our users."
> > > > > Simply saying, "Use 2.1.8 if you want fast CJKV core fonts" seems
> > > > > pretty simple to me.
> > > >
> > > > Seconded, FWIW.
> > >
> > > So you think it's acceptable to slap the users in asia into the face or
> > > what ? Those users get a font loading performance which is *NOT*
> > > acceptable if that code gets removed again.
> > No. We tell them that sorry, the previous code mistakenly used private
> > interfaces for an optimization, and we had to stop.
> There was no "WE". There was only ONE person who started the rants. The
> same person who started this thread again... again less than 24h before
> the freeze.
> Keith Packard: Why are _you_ always coming up with such kind of
> "problems" in the last minute ?
No, I was bringing this issue up again, as can be seen in the bugzilla
entry you're watching or the mailing lists between when this issue was
discussed way back when and when Keith piped up now.
The build is still broken. We shouldn't be breaking the build on
basically every linux release out there for the sake of an
optimization. We shouldn't back that optimization out, obviously, but
unless the submitter or committer of the optimization can fix it, people
without the ability to test whether their fixes break the optimization
are pretty screwed.
Note, "We" means X.Org in that sentence, obviously.
> > If they want to use
> > the optimization, simply update their system freetype to 2.1.8 and
> > recompile and bam, everything works. Remember, that's what you're
> > telling every single user to do as is, only most of them don't even get
> > an optimization out of the deal.
> Hint: The last X release made FreeType>= 2.1.7 mandatory, later it was
> updated to V2.1.8 due lots of problems in 2.1.7 AND the issue with the
> CJKV optimisation. So the vendors have two choices:
> 1. Using a buggy FreeType 2.1.7
> 2. Use FreeType 2.1.8
> The 2nd option would trouble users much less...
That's interesting, our maintainer is not updating FreeType to 2.1.8+
because of rendering degredations he says he's seen with it. I'm trying
to clarify what exactly those were now. If the font issues I'm seeing
now that my distribution's freetype has been blown away by X.Org (since
I'm forced to in order to do work on X.Org now) are because of the
Freetype update, then it's pretty spectacular. I'm sure hoping it
Eric Anholt eta at lclark.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt at FreeBSD.org
More information about the xorg