The circular dependency is a headache, but I don't think the reconsideration of the building system is good place to discuss the simplification of the dependency between FreeType and harfbuzz.
In my understanding, the features of harfbuzz used by FreeType are very small subset, the classification of character encoding, script and language. Although I sympathize with the circular dependency problem, it would not be good idea to cloning them into FreeType source code, because of the different time-frames between FreeType and Unicode related features of harfbuzz (or Unicode itself). Some meta-building system would be the easiest way to avoid the manual and repeated building of FreeType and harfbuzz, aslike some GNU toolchains (binutils + gcc + gdb) ? Regards, mpsuzuki P.S. But, I'm interested in the decision under a situation: if harfbuzz requires libstdc++, should we care the dependency of FreeType? Vincent Torri wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:39 AM Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> currently, to have harfbuzz support, freetype must be compiled >>> without hb support, then build hb with freetype support, then >>> freetype with hb. >>> >>> it would be nice to remove this circular dependency >> AFAIK, this would only be possible by splitting either HarfBuzz or >> FreeType into two packages, and this won't happen. > > or moving/coying some functions from freetype to hb, or conversely ? > > Vincent Torri > >
