fa.openbsd.tech
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: libfreetype linkage with libz. Correct behavior?

Subject: Re: libfreetype linkage with libz. Correct behavior?
From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan_kew@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:08:33 UTC
Newsgroups: fa.openbsd.tech


On 30 Jul 2008, at 10:46 PM, Edd Barrett wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Yes indeed, and for the explanation -- very helpful.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:23:49PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
Yes, it's the expected behavior. Normally in BSD world we don't link
libraries together, since it only hides problems on architectures
without shared libs (because the .a format doesn't allow for this kind
of information).

In X the situation is a bit confused by the fact that there's no easy,
standard way to prevent libtool from doing that. So some libs have
NEEDED info and other don't.

Ah, that accounts for my confusion, I guess. If no libs carried this info, I'd have understood that it simply wasn't provided in the OpenBSD world. But we were directly experiencing the effects of NEEDED libs being pulled in (by libfontconfig, in particular), and I was assuming we should expect consistent behavior from all the libraries.


If you use pkg-config to find how to use libfreetype, you should get -lz
automagically.

Thats a point, you could base the freetype check on pkg-config. What do
you think of that Jonathan?

That's probably a good thing to do for the future, but we're not going to touch it right now -- speaking for myself, at least, I don't feel confident making such a change to TeX Live's build system at this stage, and trusting that it won't have any unexpected repercussions on the other dozen or more architectures. (E.g., is freetype2.pc in the default PKG_CONFIG_PATH? Not on this Darwin machine, for example. So we need a mechanism to handle that...)

For this time, Edd, I think you're stuck with the workaround I gave you.

JK


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>