Re: Update pango to 1.29.4

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:40PM +0000, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:07:05AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > You seem to be following the unstable branches here.
> > GNOME is following the Linux convention that odd numbers are unstable and 
> > even numbers are stable releases.
> 
> As a gnome developer, I am well aware of this ;-) I am trying to follow the
> stable gtk3 3.2 series. As I write above however, it requires pango 1.29.

Oh, I'm sorry. Then you already know all of that of course :)

> Now, all that might be "unstable" about pango 1.29 AFAICT is the new support
> for CoreText. So, if we want to be conservative in pkgsrc, maybe the answer
> is to pop the patch in as is, which would install the "old" atsui on darwin
> and not touch the "unstable" coretext module? (Or we could just go for it ;-) 
> )

I'm curious why pango-1.30 wasn't released when gtk3-3.2 was released?
We could just go for it if you find it stable enough.

> I don't have commit access - otherwise pkg/45738, 45779, 45786, 45794, 45797,
> 45807, 45812 might already be in ;-) (If you think they are OK, maybe you
> might consider giving me access?)

I'll take a look at them (and then at your question :) ).

> > > I not sure about the ABI_DEPENDS in buildlink3. I set it to 1.29.4. AFAICT
> > > programs compiled against 1.28.4.nb2 are happy without needing to be
> > > relinked, so is upping it necessary? API_DEPENDS correctly remains at 
> > > 1.6.0.
> > 
> > Please read section 14.2.2 in the pgksrc guide and come back with any 
> > questions :)
> 
> I had read it, and think I got the patch right...

Have any major shlib versions changed? I.e. has any libfoo.2 become libfoo.3?
(we don't care about libfoo.2.1 to libfoo.2.2.)
If yes, we need a bump. If no, not.

> Ah. (I feel that the patch is suspect though - which c++ compiler are the
> non-gcc flags good for? Surely not everything apart from gcc? Then again,
> that was accepted in the past.)

The patch was committed with the following message:
revision 1.18
date: 2009/11/22 19:14:41;  author: sno;  state: Exp;  lines: +18 -12
Adding some patches to get it a bit further compiled with Sun Studio
(see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602408).
Without commiting so far I couldn't check progress over the week - sorry
for the extra noise.

I see that the bug is fixed in the meantime. Perhaps a pkgsrc/Solaris
can test if the devel/pango/patch-aa is still needed. Hans, could you
please do that?

> OK, that becomes a style question then: pop all the PLIST_VARS together in
> Makefile, or in options.mk? (I would go for options.mk...)

I'd also put the option-specific ones in options.mk.

> Agreed, unless the "be conservative in pkgsrc" argument prevails? (ie the
> difference between an even and an odd number being CoreText)

CoreText seems old enough (following Matthias Rampke's email).
 Thomas