Re: [Cjk] separate ttf2pk package? (fwd)

[David Turner]

Hi Werner,

I think that separating the contributions from the main package
is a good idea.

Moreover, I would even separate the RPMs of the FreeType library
itself, and those of the test programs (as some unfortunately rely on
X11 being installed, which causes problems for people who want to
install the library it on servers with no X11)..

- David

> 
> Please comment.
> 
>     Werner
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 22:25:22 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
> From: PILCH Hartmut <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Cjk] separate ttf2pk package?
> 
> While building RPM packages for cjk and friends, I find it useful to
> take programs like ttf2pk out of the freetype contribs directory.
> 
> ttf2pk is evidently independent of the release cycles (stable vs
> unstable) of FreeType.  Also, the FreeType top level configure/make
> system does not take care of ttf2pk and FreeType RPM packages usually
> ignore ttf2pk.  Rightly so, because ttf2pk is not needed by most of
> the programs that need FreeType.  Within SuSE Linux, only the te_cjk
> package I am building needs it.
> 
> I can take ttf2pk and friends out of the freetype current release
> myself, but it would be better if this was officially done by the
> authors and if ttf2pk was given a separate version number.  Otherwise
> the RPM package headers become somewhat ugly.
> 
> --
> phm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cjk maillist  -  address@hidden
> http://ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/cjk