Fontconfig - Nov 2005 - gimp compiling confusion w/fontconfig.h

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:06:56 -0700 Goyo Roth <goyo.roth@utah.edu>
wrote:
>     I realize that you may not be able to dictate the versions of 
> fontconfig various distributions use, but I was confused by this header 
> such that I didn''t know what the correct course of action was.
Should I
> eliminate the X11R6 header that seems to lake newer features? But what 
Personally I always move out of the way the fontconfig-related files that come
with X,(headers, libs, pkgconfig file) and use the ones from the fontconfig
package. FWIW, I do the same for xrender, render and xft2. If you''re
going to
use a separate package it''s bound to be more up to date than what a
stable X
release has.

-- 
Ciprian Popovici

I''ve run into something of a problem involving the fontconfig library 
whose correct solution is still something of a mystery to me.

I was happily compiling gimp-2.0 when a flood of undefined FC_WIDTH* 
errors arose and halted my compile. Further investigation revealed the 
cause to be the inclusion of /usr/X11R6/include in the compile include 
path in addition to /usr/include/. Each of these directories includes a 
different fontconfig/fontconfig.h file. The X11R6 file came with my 
XFree86 4.3.0.1 release which I compiled myself. It has this at the top 
of the file:

/*
 * $XFree86: xc/lib/fontconfig/fontconfig/fontconfig.h,v 1.32 2002/10/11 
17:53:03 keithp Exp $
 *
 * Copyright ? 2001 Keith Packard, member of The XFree86 Project, Inc.


    This file does not have the various FC_WIDTH* defines that gimp 
needed to compile, but was found first, so it was what the compile was 
using.

The /usr/include file came from the libconfig1 package in the Debian 
testing distribution, but shared a header with the latest 2.2 fontconfig 
release from the fontconfig.org website.

/*
 * $RCSId: xc/lib/fontconfig/fontconfig/fontconfig.h,v 1.30 2002/09/26 
00:17:27 keithp Exp $
 *
 * Copyright ? 2001 Keith Packard


    This was the file that included what I needed. I moved the X11R6 
file out of the way and managed to get on with the compile. However,
I''m
still confused by this. The latest file bears what seems to be a lower 
version identifier 1.30 and an earlier date than the problematic X11R6 
file.
    I realize that you may not be able to dictate the versions of 
fontconfig various distributions use, but I was confused by this header 
such that I didn''t know what the correct course of action was. Should I
eliminate the X11R6 header that seems to lake newer features? But what 
about the later date in the header?
    What say you?

Thanks.

Goyo