Harfbuzz

I noticed, that the file harfbuzz/hb.h is missing from the SDK includes. Is there any good way to obtain this file in the correct version?

I'd like to stay with the .so version included with the system/SDK.

@alfkil

Harfbuzz outputs this:

Quote:

This is rather strange taking into account the following quote from harfbuzz.org:

Quote:

Why has this particular library not been at least updated, now that it is suddenly included as part of the latest SDK?

@alfkil
Probably because brothers have no needs to update it to recent ones, as that one which we have in SDK satisfacted their needs. If i remember right, even in new SDK some parts just didn't updated and keeps as it was.

As i understand it can be ./configure;make , so maybe it even have no needs to be in SDK as well.

@kas1e

That, however, is no excuse for leaving out the relevant include files from the SDK release. That is just plain sloppy.

By the way, it seems that 'jpeglib.h' is missing as well.

EDIT: Sorry, 'libjpeg.so' does not seem to be included in the SDK.

EDIT EDIT: In fact, libjpeg.so seems to stem from the OS installation CD - but have not been included in the SDK. Furthermore, the compiler returns this, when trying to link to it:

Quote:

The mysteries seem to revolve endlessly...

@alfkil

libharfbuzz is not in the SDK at all as far as I can see. It was added inot the OS install with FE Update 1, but there has been no SDK update since 2015. So leaving out file that didn't exist at the time can hardly be described as "sloppy". It isn't in my SDK for sure, though that is a bit of a long term updated project

libjpeg was in earlier SDKs, not sure if the omission from the recent was a mistake or change of policy, but the includes for that are easy to come by.

(note always keep your old SDKs when upgrading!)


No idea why your cross compiler doesn't recognise the file but I would chack the md5sums of the file on the OS and the file in the cross compile install match.

Anyway, the problem with the old and outdated version of libharfbuzz.so is, that it is a dependency of the new version of libfontconfig.so, and so any application - like Qt - depending on both libfontconfig and libharfbuzz will have conflicts if not linked to the system version of libharfbuzz.so. This is not possible with Qt. It refuses to build with the system version (I tried spoofing).

It would be so wonderful, if we could keep from falling off the edge of the world by remembering the effort to keep just a bit more up to date on computing standards.

@broadblues

Ok, if libharfbuzz.so is not in the SDK, it is even worse. It is a dependency of libfontconfig.so, which IS included (or am I delusional?).

My post above explains the problem of conflicting dependencies.

EDIT: By the way, didn't Update 1 do some updates to the SDK? Or was that the Enhancer Pack?

EDIT EDIT: Update 1 DID come with an update to the SDK - the minigl update. Other than that, it came with the new version of libfontconfig, but no updated header files for that one, and apparently a freshly conceived version of libharfbuzz, but no SDK entry or header files for that one either. Forgetfulness, some might say. Sloppy, I would say.

@alfkil

There was an SDK section with updated MiniGL and Python includes, but other wise the system was updated *not* the SDK. That goes for any number of system libraries as well.

I guess that's a design flaw in using links from the SDK to the SOBJS: diectory.

I generaly replace those with real coppies to ensure I'm linking against the right libraries (even then that goes wrong fropm time to time).

@broadblues

Quote:

Apparently so, but that's an observation about what accidentally happened, not about the intention behind. In my view, the intention to include the new version of libfontconfig was entirely unclear, and the result seems to have been problems rather than solutions. I am just asking for a little more careful attention to details when releasing updates. I don't think I am asking for much.