Re: problem with building pango-1.0.4 and pangoxft2

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 03:28:32AM +0100, mike wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 02:44, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:25:15PM +0100, mike wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 17:00, mike wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 10:04, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:49:19AM +0100, mike wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > 1. Pango does not build xft2 support (despite announcements that it
> > > > > > does) because it looks for a file that is only present in xft1
> > > > > > (xftfreetype.h)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Umm ... XftFreetype.h is part of the XFree86 development packages, not
> > > > > freetype.
> > > > 
> > > > that what I said ie: Xft1
> > 
> > As the following two quoted paragraphs explain, it _is_ picking up the
> > freetype2 packages and you have a syntax errors in your header. The
> > problem is with your freetype-devel installation.
> 
> No - XftFreetype has nothing to do with freetype - it is a Xft1 file -
> so pango-1.0.+ should have a option for Xft version and if Xft2 is
> installed should not look for this file.

*sigh*

Read the original error message! It is looking in the
/usr/include/freetype2 directory (see the '2'? Note that it is not a
'1'?). It is erroring out due to a syntax in a file in that directory.
It is difficult for me to say this more clearly.

Clearly I am too stupid to answer your problem. After all, I have only
read the errors, read the source code to see what configure.in is
testing for, looked on Google to see that other, similar errors were due
to the same thing, installed freetype-2.0.3 to check that the configure
script builds the right file in that case, read the manual page of
pkg-config to confirm what I thought was the case, worked out some
pkg-config tests for you to try and generally screwed around for about
two and half hours to try and help you solve your problem.  What would I
know? I give up. Maybe somebody else on this list will help you with
your problems, even though basic compilation problems, not due to the
package itself, are off-topic here.

> > Quoting from the pkg-config manual page:
> > 
> > 	"By default, pkg-config looks in the directory
> > 	prefix/lib/pkgconfig for these files; it will also look in the
> > 	colon-separated list of directories specified by the
> > 	PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable."
> > 
> > So pkg-config is behaving correctly.
> 
> no it is not
> 
> my prefix for the build is /opt/gnome
> path also starts with /opt/gnome
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH is also /opt/gnome
> 
> so IMHO pkg-config should 
> either not look in any other prefix or throw an error.

How is pkg-config meant to know what the prefix for your package is?
Look at how it is invoked -- the information cannot possibly be passed
in. So, as in all these cases, it is talking about the $(prefix) value
when pkg-config was installed. That is a common idiom in manual pages,
so you will know how to interpret it in future.

Futhermore. read the manual page. Read a bit further past where I
quoted. It lays it out in black and white (in the description of
PKG_CONFIG_PATH).

> 
> Also  - to put it mildly
> > "By default, pkg-config looks in the directory
> > 	prefix/lib/pkgconfig for these files
> 
> is a little ambiguous
> 
> is this the obvious ie: the prefix you are defining
> 
> or 
> 
> the prefix that pkgconfig was originally installed in

You keep slanting your statements with claims like "it is clear" or
"this is obvious" just to add weight to your initial assumptions. That
gets very annoying. There are two choices here. They both have equal
chances of being right if you know nothing. As I mentioned above, the
traditional interpretation is the second one, particularly since the
first one is impossible ($prefix is never exported in the Makefile's
shell, so pkg-config cannot know about it).

> BTW - this is probably not that common as I am installing an old version
> of G2 - which explains why no other shouts

A lot of us build both versions regularly. You are just learning some of
the tricks about version interactions, so it is taking you some time to
get there. Perhaps the only problem you have found is that the GTK+
packages in the GNOME 2.0.x releases should check for a Pango version <
1.1 as well.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this thread now. I am just going round in
circles.

Malcolm