Kuba Ober wrote:
trying to say that gcc had no bugs, etc. I'm just arguing for including those
silly ttfs in the source distibution, that's all.
TTF files are binaries, and the current policy is that there should be
no binaries in the source tree. (That's why it's called "The Wine
Source"
> > Well, if someone wants to do more work for the sake of argument, then I
> > guess we live in a free world. But still, the fonts are such a fringe
> > part of wine that I just can't see any extra work to be worth it. For a
> > while one can just consider fontforge to be a "proprietary" tool, and
"Kuba Ober" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's lunacy! Just ship the damn prebuilt files until the time is ripe
> to take them out. Of course the sources should be kept there all the time
> as well.
So if a version of gcc got released that didn't produce correct
libraries then we should add al
> >If fontforge"made a mess", that's not just because it's an extra
> > dependency. It's because someone, instead of making the right choice and
> > shipping whatever files fontforge is building, shipped only the sources.
> > The right thing to do would be to ship the prebuilt stuff at least until
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:51:13 +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
> So if a version of gcc got released that didn't produce correct
> libraries then we should add all of the .so files to the Wine tree? What
> a good idea!
That ignores the costs/benefits of each individual case. I think it's
completely
Kuba Ober wrote:
If fontforge"made a mess", that's not just because it's an extra dependency.
It's because someone, instead of making the right choice and shipping
whatever files fontforge is building, shipped only the sources. The right
thing to do would be to ship the prebuilt stuff at least
