Re: [Freetype] freetype1 vs freetype2 vs freetype [12].*

[Allan Gottlieb]

Antoine Leca <address@hidden> writes:

> Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > 
> [Reordered]
> >     rpm -U freetype1-1.3.1-3.i686.rpm
> > yields
> >     file /usr/bin/ttmkfdir from install of freetype1-1.3.1-3 conflicts
> >     with file from package freetype-2.0.3-7
> 
> Problem here is that ttmkfdir is *not* part of Freetype 1 (at least,
> not at my knowledge). So I assume the package named "freetype1-1.3.1-3"
> has been "customized" in some way, and this customization is incompatible
> with those for Freetype 2.

Thanks.

It seems that redhat includes both freetype1 and freetype2 in their
freetype rpm.  The -devel rpm has, in /usr/include, both
freetype1/freetype and freetype2/fretype (but no
/usr/include/freetype, much to the consternation of the imlib2
configure scripty).

It seems that the redhat arrangement in this area makes imlib2, and
hence Eterm-9, more difficult to install.  I did manage to get some
imlib2 rpm to install but the result is that images ``don't work''.
However, I don't use images in Eterm, so this is (barely) tolerable.

I could compile with sources and have often do so.  But sometimes
mixing sources with rpms causes trouble since subsequent rpm
installations trust the, now incomplete, rpm database (i.e., there are
files installed that the database doesn't indicate).

thanks again for your message.

allan