RE: Pango questions in LSB context
- From: "Banginwar, Rajesh" <rajesh banginwar intel com>
- To: "Owen Taylor" <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org, gtk-list gnome org
- Subject: RE: Pango questions in LSB context
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:57:41 -0700
Thanks for the update Owen.
While going through the headers: I am finding that there are three high
level headers in pango.h, pangoft2.h and pangoxft.h. I assume these are
the headers application typically use for using corresponding libraries.
But I am finding that there are some functions exported by ft2 library
not covered by pangoft2.h. They appear in pangofc-fontmap.h and
pangofc-decoder.h. In pangofc-fontmap.h there are 3 interfaces declared
outside of ENABLE macro. Should these be in LSB (same question for
fc-decoder.h header)? Why are they outside the pangoft2.h scope?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen Taylor [mailto:otaylor redhat com]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 5:50 PM
> To: Banginwar, Rajesh
> Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org; gtk-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Pango questions in LSB context
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 13:54 -0700, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here some new questions that came up during LSB inclusion
> > process for all the Pango libraries:
> > - All of libpangox-1.0 library is deprecated. LSB will not include
> > Is that Ok? Any comments?
> Please do not include it. It is basically non-functional at this time,
> and is included only to preserve ABI compat with apps that link to
> it but don't actually use it.
> > - Many of the interfaces in pango* libraries are ifdefed by
> > PANGO_ENABLE_ENGINE and PANGO_ENABLE_BACKEND macros. From what I
> > find, these interfaces are low level and used rarely by the
> > applications. Should these be in LSB? Do applications require these
> > interfaces? Are they stable (any planned ABI changes)?
> These interfaces shouldn't be included in the LSB ... the #ifdef's
> reflect a reduced level of stability and indicate that the interfaces
> are not for application use: they are most of interest to someone
> writing an add-on script plugin, and such plugins aren't guaranteed
> to work between 1.8 and 1.10 or similar, only within a single
> 1.8.x series.
] [Thread Prev