[11u] RFR: 8249821: Separate libharfbuzz from libfontmanager

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Thanks, Mario!

Best regards,
  Goetz.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:35 PM
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>
> Cc: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [11u] RFR: 8249821: Separate libharfbuzz from libfontmanager
> 
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:13 AM Lindenmaier, Goetz
> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mario,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing.
> >
> > You are right, in itself, this change makes no sense for 11.
> > But it is a prerequisite for "8250894: Provide a configure option
> > to build and run against the platform libharfbuzz"
> > which in my eyes is a change that makes sense for 11.
> > It will help to adapt the VM to new os releases that come
> > with more recent libs.
> >
> > > so the only question is if we want to keep
> > > this extra comment at this point or not:
> > > // Solaris does not link because the implementation in .cc specifies
> > > num_glyphs as const.
> >
> > There are several other adptions in the file for solaris,
> > that are commented similarly. See line 284
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr20/8249821-separate_harfbuzz-
> jdk11/01/src/java.desktop/share/native/libharfbuzz/hb-subset-cff-
> common.hh.html
> >
> > I guess these comments help in case  libharfbuzz is
> > updated to find places where adaptions for solaris are
> > needed.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. My point was that those extra comments may make it more
> difficult to automatically apply other patches in the future (as they
> would differ in context), on the other hand the context is already
> changed anyway (either because of the extra definition or because on
> the keyword difference) and I do prefer the consistency, so all is
> good :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Mario
> --
> Mario Torre
> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898