The fribidi site is quite clear -- and I consider 0.19.X to be something we should have linked against ages ago (given 0.10 was from 2007, and 0.19.X is 2009). Furthermore, I fail to see *what* the problem is with all of this, given fribidi *itself* suggests 0.19.X -- which is exactly what I went and did, with there being *no* ABI breakage that I saw, and only one minor API warning, which was fixed.

And for that reason alone, I won't be supporting anything less than fribidi 0.19.X.

-- Thomas Adam

Hello Thomas,

referring to fribidi's website I can't remember that Slackware came with any unstable packages. Therefore I wrote that the stability may be a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem running "unstable" packages on my system since I know how I can get rid of them.

Another question is if/when the maintainers of fribidi turn 0.19 officially into a stable release.

Markus

I see -- well, that's potentially a shame for Slackware, but it's not something I care to support upstream. It becomes a *nightmare*, and whilst I don't take version bumps like this lightly, in Fribidi's case, it made a lot of sense. If this creates a problem for Slackware, then I'm sorry. Patch it to support both, but I won't officially support Slackware upstream unless a problem is reproducible linking against 0.19.2.

That's one for someone to ask the Fribidi team. Every other distribution I've seen is using 0.19.2, so maybe it's more stable than the website suggests, and if it's just a question of semantics, maybe it's a kick up their backside they'd appreciate. :P

-- Thomas Adam

Yeah, it also says "and is fairly API/ABI compatible with the 0.10 series".

I have enough compatibility problems with the stuff that claims to be completely compatible. Really, I'd bite on this but if it broke MPlayer (which it _could_), I'd kick myself later.

Compiling fvwm is only a small part of the configuration you'll have to do for that, anyway. And just use --disable-bidi.

We will revisit this issue soon enough, trust me.

Well, it is a shame, yes. But all I am saying is that if the information on the fribidi site is still accurate, they seem to advocate 0.19.2 over 0.10.X, it's just that they still don't think it stable yet. But I appreciate the impact is slightly more ranging than just FVWM.

Great -- and if not having fribidi support compiled against 2.6.1 is acceptable in the immediate term for you, that's certainly an option.

-- Thomas Adam

1 members found this post helpful.

Somewhat like FVWM itself was doing for years.

1 members found this post helpful.

Sure -- but the point is, now it's stable. :P

-- Thomas Adam

And now it's included in the latest -Current, even though it's in extra directory, not in the main directory

Which seems like a good choice given markush's comment in post #3.
It would be disconcerting to lose a customised setup after an automated package version upgrade.

This is why I wrote "fvwm-convert-2.6" which ships with FVWM. It might not catch all the upgrade paths, but it's better than nothing.

-- Thomas Adam