Here are the relevant parts of a correspondence between me and David. > > "We have a situation where catering to several versions of Pango has > > proven tricky to the degree of tripping you up." > > > > I think you see this patch as a proof that there is something > > inherently tricky about working with Pango. > > The old interface is deprecated in current version, you want to tackle > the warnings while the new interface is not available in all versions > that are supposed to be supported after the patch. > > That is not inherently tricky about working with Pango, it means that > the problem you are trying to tackle with the second one of the patches > just does not have a good single non-#ifdefed solution within the > version range you are trying to cover. That was not obvious from the > original patch without delving into Pango documentation.
Can you read the patches again, carefully? Neither of the two patches change any functionality: HAVE_PANGO_FT2 is true since forever. The RAII patch just moves the same calls to the same deprecated function to a central place so there are less warnings. > > I disagree; there is nothing special about this; the only problem is > > that we need to get feedback of compiling against different Linux > > distributions before we submit code. By contrast, staring at the code > > longer, or letting it sit in countdown for more time is not going to > > help. > > An "I am going to just do this; anybody have a better idea? Otherwise I > am just going to go ahead." would help avoid the impression that one > considers other developers and their interests unnecessary baggage. > It's not formal countdown, will add perhaps half a day to the delay of > something that nobody knows to be urgent. And if it is urgent, just > mentioning the reason while going ahead will at least keep others in the > loop. > > Part of the staging system process is to remove the sense of urgency > that expresses itself in fixes shot from the hip and tends to get > tempers higher rather than lower. > > [..] > > If you feel that it's pointless for anybody to see whether the > dependencies can be resolved in a manner that appears more tenable for It's not pointless to improve this, but it's also not mutually exclusive with going ahead with the current 2 patches, which are semantic no-op cleanups. [..] So, yes, please put these back on staging. If you find it breaks somewhere somehow, I will come up with a way to fix and test it quickly. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:28 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 20.02.2020, 20:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > Jonas Hahnfeld < > > hah...@hahnjo.de > > > writes: > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.02.2020, 17:30 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > > > David Kastrup < > > > > d...@gnu.org > > > > > > > > > writes: > > > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys < > > > > > hanw...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > writes: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:19 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys < > > > > > > hanw...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +// Necessary for supporting pango_context_new() and > > > > > > > > +// pango_context_set_font_map() in Pango < 1.22 > > > > > > > > +#define PANGO_ENABLE_BACKEND > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > I'm preparing a docker image for my lilypond-ci scripts that lets > > > > > > > me check > > > > > > > for this case too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did this, see > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/hanwen/lilypond-ci/commit/145e1e0dcf61c74ff3278ebb1a0fedda17f08056 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it reproduces the failure. I added a fix, and verified it passes on > > > > > > Ubuntu > > > > > > 19.04. > > > > > > > > > > > > I pushed it to staging. > > > > > > > > > > > > There should be a cleaner way than defining PANGO_ENABLE_BACKEND, > > > > > > but don't > > > > > > have time to investigate now. > > > > > > > > > > Could you explain the urgency warranting an immediate hotfix bypassing > > > > > all review, feedback and proper solution-finding? > > > > > > > > Moved this to dev/pango branch for now so that we have a chance to > > > > discuss this. > > > > > > For the record, you seem to have pushed to commits to staging -> master > > > again, right? > > > > Yes. Han-Wen and I had an off-list discussion about the impact of the > > changes, and they are at least not a regression in respect to the > > previous state we had, even if they cannot reduce the number of warnings > > in newer versions of Pango to zero while still supporting a range of > > older versions. > > May I ask to have such discussion on-list for the next time? That's why > we have a lilypond-devel, right? > > Jonas -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
