Bug 1178876
| Summary: | FreeType-2.5.5 is available | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alexei Podtelezhnikov <apodtele> |
| Component: | freetype | Assignee: | Marek Kašík <mkasik> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | b38617, behdad, fonts-bugs, kevin, mkasik, upstream-release-monitoring |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | freetype-2.5.5-1.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-01-06 14:55:53 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Alexei Podtelezhnikov
2015-01-05 15:15:41 UTC
(In reply to Alexei Podtelezhnikov from comment #0) > Please update. I'm plan to do so now since I'm back from holidays and freetype have got to the top of my TODO list. > I am puzzled why FreeType is never updated in the middle of release cycle. Because it can introduce incompatible changes which I don't want to get in during stable release. > Are you sure that backporting fixes is safer? I don't think that it is safer (could it be?). I actually think that it is equally safe if done well. > Really? Really? > libpng, libjpeg-turbo, cairo, fontconfig are all fine to update, but not > FreeType. Freetype is required by quite a lot of packages so I'm quite careful when rebasing it. > I never ever had any problem with updated versions. You do not seem to have > problems updating between releases. So why? I usually rebase freetype in rawhide which is a testing release where users can expect changes but they don't want them in stable release (and me too (except of fixes of bugs of course)). > I *know* that changes FreeType introduces changes very carefully. I've looked at changes between versions of freetype in current stable releases (F20 and F21) and their +1 versions and got this list of changes I don't want to introduce into stable releases: 2.5.0 - 2.5.1: - The header file layout has been changed. After installation, all files are now located in `<prefix>/include/freetype2'. 2.5.3 - 2.5.4: - Some fields in the `FT_Bitmap' structure have been changed from signed to unsigned type, which better reflects the actual usage. It is also an additional means to protect against malformed input. - This change doesn't break the ABI; however, it might cause compiler warnings. - But it still changes API! - Values of ft_sfnt_* were specified before, they are not now. > Please reconsider your policy. I'll check every new freetype whether it is pushable to stable release. Have a nice day! Marek *** Bug 1178333 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Marek Kašík from comment #1) > I've looked at changes between versions of freetype in current stable > releases (F20 and F21) and their +1 versions and got this list of changes I > don't want to introduce into stable releases: > > 2.5.0 - 2.5.1: > - The header file layout has been changed. After installation, all files > are now located in `<prefix>/include/freetype2'. > > 2.5.3 - 2.5.4: > - Some fields in the `FT_Bitmap' structure have been changed from signed to > unsigned type, which better reflects the actual usage. It is also an > additional means to protect against malformed input. > - This change doesn't break the ABI; however, it might cause compiler > warnings. > - But it still changes API! > > - Values of ft_sfnt_* were specified before, they are not now. API changes/compatibility report for the FreeType2 library: http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/versions/freetype2.html |