Re: [Freetype] FreeType 2.0 SNAFU

[Stefan Seefeld]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> > > > Why /usr/local/include/freetype2/freetype and not simply
> > > > /usr/local/include/freetype2 ?
> > >
> > > On Unix, the final location really doesn't matter IMHO due to the
> > > `freetype-config' script.  Since we don't have `install' targets for
> > > other platforms, David's quick solution doesn't really hurt.
> >
> > while it may work, I still consider it more clean if it can be
> > installed in standard places. Given that the above decision was
> > based on time constraints, wouldn't it be a good idea to change
> > that now, *before* the next minor release ?
> 
> Well, yes, I agree.  I can do the appropriate changes -- to be 8+3
> compliant, I suggest `freetype.2' as the directory name (note the
> dot).  This makes FT2 a bit unique, but it works :-)

ah, now I remember. That is silly, are there still platforms which need
the 8+3 format ?

So assuming the internal header references are of the form <freetype/header.h>,
is the '/usr/local/include/freetype2' just the default installation path ?
Is it possible to still install in '/usr/local/include' ? If so, I take
back my suggestion to modify anything, and instead suggest that all package
providers make that relocation possible (as I already proposed once).
People who don't deal with the old freetype stuff should be able to have
FT2 in a standard place. Just in case where there are conflicts should they
be able to put it elsewhere...

Hmm, but that would mean that the freetype-conf script would need to be
modified at installation time, as it contains these paths...

Regards,        Stefan
_______________________________________________________              
              
Stefan Seefeld
Departement de Physique
Universite de Montreal
email: address@hidden

_______________________________________________________

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...