[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ft-devel] Time for a new FreeType release

From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [ft-devel] Time for a new FreeType release
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:53:29 +0200 (CEST)

> So, let me rephrase the question: what would it take to unify all
> ftconfig.* files into one for all platforms?

Two cases have to be supported.

(1) A call to


    should run on *all* platforms.  In other words, GNU make by itself
    had to produce an `ftconfig.h' file from the template.

    Ditto for `make devel'.

(2) A call to


    should do what it does now.

If you manage (1), please proceed :-) As Tosihiya-san said: having a
single config file is certainly a good idea.

> This reminds me: do we really need the devel/*.h files or can we
> make something easier using build system hackery?  Most of the
> defines can be turned into build system options anyway, a debug
> build would be a simple --enable-debug-build or something that turns
> everything on.

I'm open to any changes under the hood as long as `make devel' works –
without calling `./configure', and doing a static build.

>> On the other hand, it would disable direct compilation from git for
>> non-UNIX platforms, forcing people to first say `make tarball' or
>> something like this to generate the necessary file(s).
> Well, you want to invoke some build system anyway, so the build
> system does the heavy lifting for you while building?  Why ship
> pre-filled config.hs?

My thinko, see above.  If GNU make produces `ftconfig.h', then I don't
object to larger changes :-)

>> If we changed the FreeType build system to native automake, say,
>> then we could have a single `config.h' file.  I'm sometimes tempted
>> to do that...
> Why not use AC_CONFIG_FILES like in configure.raw?

Because this needs a bourne shell...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]