Re: PangoXft and PangoFT2 patch from hell
- From: Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- To: Tor Lillqvist <tml iki fi>
- Cc: Hans Breuer <hans breuer org>, Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>, Sven Neumann <sven gimp org>, <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: PangoXft and PangoFT2 patch from hell
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:34:30 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Alex Larsson writes:
> > > What do you suggest 'for now'. I guess porting mini-xft is at least
> > > some hours of work. A _really_ short look at the code gave me the
> > > impression, that it is tightly bound to the *ix way of doing things.
> Well, just making it build (with gcc; MSVC will need some #ifdef
> HAVE_UNISTD_H etc) was not that hard. Whether it actually does
> anything sensible is another matter. Anybody have a simple (but not
> too simple) working test program for pangoft2? (I don't think the old
> viewer-ft2.c in Pango's examples compiles any longer?) What should an
> XftConfig file look like? (Oh well, that can probably be found on the
I normally try it with libgnomecanvas. But I don't know if you want to
build that on win32.
Perhaps we should restore viewer-ft2.c.
> > > Otherwise what are the policies for porting mini-xft to win32 ?
> > > #ifdef _MSC_VER, HAVE_GLIB_H and G_OS_WIN32 .... ?
> For now, I just used #ifdef _WIN32, as mini-xft doesn't use GLib.
Yeah. Sounds sane.
] [Thread Prev