Re: Release team perspective [Was: libgnomeprint* 1.116.x in 2.2]

[Chema Celorio <chema ximian com>]

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 10:49, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:41:20AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Chema Celorio">
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 09:47, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > >   - The 2.2 version does not have any dependencies on other 2.2 modules
> > > >     (though has an optional dependency on fontconfig).
> > > 
> > > s/optional//
> > 
> > Not optional? That's a big pain then...
> > 
> > It makes it much harder for developers to target the 2.2 platform, given
> > that they have to rely on their users having GNOME 2.2 (or RH8).
> > 
> 
> The whole point of redoing things with fontconfig is to get rid of the
> broken impossible-to-maintain gnome-print-specific font configuration
> BS. If you still maintain said BS as a fallback, you haven't gotten
> anywhere.
> 
> Believe me, getting fontconfig working is a hell of a lot easier than
> getting the old gnome-print working... though if fontconfig is still
> not so hot at working "out of the tarball" we could perhaps give it
> some loving in that area.

Havoc could have not expressed better the pain inflicted by the
gnome-print-specific fontmap, specially with that 'BS' qualifier.

Asking any user to upgrade to fontconfig is easier than having them try
to debug a problem with their fonts, or even worse their users font.
Same goes for packaging, they are better off not having to deal with
that part of gnome-print.

> > Not optional? That's a big pain then...

I'm all for finding the less painful solution for all, I think we have a
number of options.

regards,
Chema