[Cairo] Re: Xrender transforms...
otaylor at redhat.com
Thu Aug 14 12:56:00 PDT 2003
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:35, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is how it was done in gnome 1.4 which is over 2 years old. For
> > gnome 2.0 we've split up the libraries into separate tarballs. It makes
> > maintaining the packages easier, you don't have to re-release the entire
> > set of libraries if there's a bugfix in one of the libraries.
> > So the way it's done now is pretty much like cairo and its dependencies
> > do it.
> The difference is that every gnome library is at least a 400K tarball,
> while the 4 cairo together are at most 135K, the slim library being 5K
> only. libic and libpixregion are a bit bigger, but still nothing
> compared to the vaste number of gnome libraries either in number or in
> So i believe that, altough this argument makes some sense for gnome, it
> is ways overkill for cairo.
You are misunderstanding the GNOME reasonings. Size has nothing to
do with it.
> That said, nothing stops you from having different CVS repositories,
> just it is much easier to the final user if the library ships in one
> package only.
The reasons for shipping separate libraries are here are:
- Dependencies. pixregion and libic *can't* go into the Cairo library
because X will depend on them, and Cairo (on X) will depend on X.
- Logical independence. The only conceivable reason to have 'slim'
is the idea that all sorts of libraries are going to use it.
To make Xrender and FreeType things you have to have before
you build 'slim' is not sensible.
As in my other mail, I think combining pixregion and libic would make
sense. It's quite possible that 'slim' should just be a header file
cut-and-pasted into each module. (In which case, nothing should
But taking things too far doesn't make sense. For early releases
of fontconfig/Xft, both the Xft and fontconfig Red Hat source
RPMS contained the sources for fontconfig, Xft, *and* Xrender,
because it they were distributed as one big tarball.
More information about the cairo