Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@sun.consumer.org.il writes:
I may have came across wrong. I am not suggesting we stick to libfribidi forever, whatever it can do is fine, and what it can't won't be done. To emphasize this point, you will notice that my patch does not export any of libfribidi's functions. In retrospect, I think I'll rename the .c file to "bidi" - will be more apropriate.
I am saying that it is covering all of our current needs, and thus we should go for it as it saves us somewhere between a month of work and half a year (calendaric time, estimates based on assumption that I'm the only one working on it). If at some future time we come to the conclusion that libfribidi is not enough, we can either add the required functionality to it, integrate it into Wine or replace it altogether. I am hoping that, by that time, interest in wine will be high enough for more people to be involved.
What I'm saying is that it's not a good idea to start using fribidi, create dependencies and problems for packagers, etc. if we know that it's a wrong design and that we will need to replace it. The truth is that bidi is not really a priority feature (as shown by the number of people interested in making it work), and so it doesn't really matter if it works tomorrow or only in 3 months. What matters is to pick a correct design so that if more people start to care they can build on it, instead of having to throw it away and restart from scratch.