Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.

Also rolls testing/corpus to 45f88c6914fcac26ad930bb0ebbfa468c21db0a5
which includes regenerated corpus expectations.

R=thestig@chromium.org

Committed: https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/87ee069d05ca06f60d6cfacd9e426739d8f2053d

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 16:49:43]

Description was changed from

==========
(In progress) Update freetype to 2.6.1
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).
==========

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 16:53:54]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype
instead of just freetype/include/
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:22:02]

ochang@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org, tsepez@chromium.org

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:22:04]

ptal

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:26:52]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype
instead of just freetype/include/
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype
instead of just freetype/include/. The build files are changed to reflect this.
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 18:29:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/BUILD.gn
File BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/BUILD.gn#newcode11
BUILD.gn:11: "third_party/freetype/include",
This is for ft2build.h I presume?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h:1:
/***************************************************************************/
Upstream removed the copyright notice?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h:828: #define
AF_CONFIG_OPTION_USE_WARPER
This was commented out before.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:45:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/BUILD.gn
File BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/BUILD.gn#newcode11
BUILD.gn:11: "third_party/freetype/include",
On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> This is for ft2build.h I presume?

yep.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h:1:
/***************************************************************************/
On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Upstream removed the copyright notice?

Yeah, it's gone in upstream.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h:828: #define
AF_CONFIG_OPTION_USE_WARPER
On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> This was commented out before.

Oh, upstream had this commented out too back in 2.5.4. Either way, this
shouldn't make much of a difference since we don't compile autofit anyway?

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:46:25]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype
instead of just freetype/include/. The build files are changed to reflect this.
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype instead
  of just freetype/include/. The build files are changed to reflect this.
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 18:50:23]

BTW, what changed in patch set 3 vs 2? Can't tell.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h:1:
/***************************************************************************/
On 2015/11/05 18:45:26, Oliver Chang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > Upstream removed the copyright notice?
> 
> Yeah, it's gone in upstream.

That's weird. I'm worried this will make Chromium's check_licenses unhappy when
we try to roll DEPS. Can you patch this in to a Chromium tree and see if the
check still passes?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftoption.h:828: #define
AF_CONFIG_OPTION_USE_WARPER
On 2015/11/05 18:45:26, Oliver Chang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > This was commented out before.
> 
> Oh, upstream had this commented out too back in 2.5.4. Either way, this
> shouldn't make much of a difference since we don't compile autofit anyway?

So this is just FT changing their defaults? If we don't use the autofit module,
then sure, whatever.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 18:52:14]

oh, patchset 3 was to fix the lexicographical ordering in third_party.gyp:

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff2/10001:10002/third_party/thir...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h:1:
/***************************************************************************/
On 2015/11/05 18:50:23, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 18:45:26, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > Upstream removed the copyright notice?
> > 
> > Yeah, it's gone in upstream.
> 
> That's weird. I'm worried this will make Chromium's check_licenses unhappy
when
> we try to roll DEPS. Can you patch this in to a Chromium tree and see if the
> check still passes?

I'll give it a try.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 19:07:03]

Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local modifications
are?

We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 19:08:38]

On 2015/11/05 18:52:14, Oliver Chang wrote:
> oh, patchset 3 was to fix the lexicographical ordering in third_party.gyp:
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff2/10001:10002/third_party/thir...
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
> File third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/10001/third_party/freetype/in...
> third_party/freetype/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h:1:
> /***************************************************************************/
> On 2015/11/05 18:50:23, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2015/11/05 18:45:26, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > > On 2015/11/05 18:29:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > Upstream removed the copyright notice?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it's gone in upstream.
> > 
> > That's weird. I'm worried this will make Chromium's check_licenses unhappy
> when
> > we try to roll DEPS. Can you patch this in to a Chromium tree and see if the
> > check still passes?
> 
> I'll give it a try.

running python checkdeps.py after patching
third_party/pdfium/third_party/freetype/../ftmodule.h to remove the copyright
notice didn't seem to cause any complaints, assuming I did everything correctly.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 19:10:29]

On 2015/11/05 19:07:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local modifications
> are?
> 
> We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.

will do that in a sec,

also oops, disregard my last message, how do I run the check_licenses check?

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 19:18:30]

On 2015/11/05 19:10:29, Oliver Chang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 19:07:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local
modifications
> > are?
> > 
> > We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.
> 
> will do that in a sec,
> 
> also oops, disregard my last message, how do I run the check_licenses check?

Ah, it failed. What's the correct (license-wise) thing to do here? It seems that
ftmodule.h didn't have this license text either.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 19:21:43]

On 2015/11/05 19:18:30, Oliver Chang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 19:10:29, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > On 2015/11/05 19:07:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local
> modifications
> > > are?
> > > 
> > > We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.
> > 
> > will do that in a sec,
> > 
> > also oops, disregard my last message, how do I run the check_licenses check?
> 
> Ah, it failed. What's the correct (license-wise) thing to do here? It seems
that
> ftmodule.h didn't have this license text either.

(back in 2.5.4)

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 20:24:12]

On 2015/11/05 19:21:43, Oliver Chang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 19:18:30, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > On 2015/11/05 19:10:29, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > > On 2015/11/05 19:07:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local
> > modifications
> > > > are?
> > > > 
> > > > We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.
> > > 
> > > will do that in a sec,
> > > 
> > > also oops, disregard my last message, how do I run the check_licenses
check?
> > 
> > Ah, it failed. What's the correct (license-wise) thing to do here? It seems
> that
> > ftmodule.h didn't have this license text either.
> 
> (back in 2.5.4)

ftmodule.h did have the license text before. Otherwise how could it have passed
checklicenses.py? Just add it back for them and note it in a patch file. If you
have time, ask FT why they did that.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 20:25:20]

On 2015/11/05 20:24:12, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 19:21:43, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > On 2015/11/05 19:18:30, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > > On 2015/11/05 19:10:29, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > > > On 2015/11/05 19:07:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > > > Can we also get a (set of?) patch file(s) to show what our local
> > > modifications
> > > > > are?
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also need to check in the corpus update and roll DEPS here.
> > > > 
> > > > will do that in a sec,
> > > > 
> > > > also oops, disregard my last message, how do I run the check_licenses
> check?
> > > 
> > > Ah, it failed. What's the correct (license-wise) thing to do here? It
seems
> > that
> > > ftmodule.h didn't have this license text either.
> > 
> > (back in 2.5.4)
> 
> ftmodule.h did have the license text before. Otherwise how could it have
passed
> checklicenses.py? Just add it back for them and note it in a patch file. If
you
> have time, ask FT why they did that.

I meant in upstream 2.5.4. It was added by us when we bundled it in pdfium. I'll
aad it back

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 20:28:21]

On 2015/11/05 20:25:20, Oliver Chang wrote:
> I meant in upstream 2.5.4. It was added by us when we bundled it in pdfium.
I'll
> aad it back

Right, we added it to pass the license check. If only we had a set of patch
files to remind us what we did last time.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 20:40:09]

On 2015/11/05 20:28:21, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2015/11/05 20:25:20, Oliver Chang wrote:
> > I meant in upstream 2.5.4. It was added by us when we bundled it in pdfium.
> I'll
> > aad it back
> 
> Right, we added it to pass the license check. If only we had a set of patch
> files to remind us what we did last time.

I guess my question was more whether if it was right license-wise to add in the
license back if FT removed it, or add it to the blacklist in checkdeps. I've
added it back for now if this is a non-issue. (I have no idea how these licenses
work). 

I've also created 2 .diff files (include.diff and src.diff) that detail the
changes made. Please see PS#5.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 21:26:17]

On 2015/11/05 20:40:09, Oliver Chang wrote:
> I guess my question was more whether if it was right license-wise to add in
the
> license back if FT removed it, or add it to the blacklist in checkdeps. I've
> added it back for now if this is a non-issue. (I have no idea how these
licenses
> work). 
> 
> I've also created 2 .diff files (include.diff and src.diff) that detail the
> changes made. Please see PS#5.

I think FT didn't remove it. They just never added it in the first place, so we
added it in our version.

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 21:29:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include.diff (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include.diff:1: diff -r
freetype-2.6.1/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h
include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h
Can you do diff -ru  instead?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/sr...
File third_party/freetype/src.diff (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/sr...
third_party/freetype/src.diff:1: Only in freetype-2.6.1/src: autofit
This is sort of useful, not really. How about we start a README.pdfium, like we
do in libopenjpeg, and just mention we didn't bother including these
directories?

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 21:58:44]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Things changed:
- most includes are moved to freetype/include/freetype instead
  of just freetype/include/. The build files are changed to reflect this.
- ftoption.h and ftmodule.h are changed based on the changes made to 
  the old 2.5.4 freetype.
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.
==========

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 22:00:40]

Added a README.pdfium, removed src.diff, removed src/gzip, and
include/freetype/ftchapers.h (no license, metadata header file used for
documentation generation).

Also added FTL.TXT, since we didn't have that before.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/in...
File third_party/freetype/include.diff (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/in...
third_party/freetype/include.diff:1: diff -r
freetype-2.6.1/include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h
include/freetype/config/ftmodule.h
On 2015/11/05 21:29:18, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Can you do diff -ru  instead?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/sr...
File third_party/freetype/src.diff (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1413673003/diff/30001/third_party/freetype/sr...
third_party/freetype/src.diff:1: Only in freetype-2.6.1/src: autofit
On 2015/11/05 21:29:18, Lei Zhang wrote:
> This is sort of useful, not really. How about we start a README.pdfium, like
we
> do in libopenjpeg, and just mention we didn't bother including these
> directories?

removed, and created a README.pdfium

[Tom Sepez, 2015-11-05 22:02:14]

tsepez@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com

[Tom Sepez, 2015-11-05 22:02:58]

Added Jun.  Jun, please take a look since you may know what local modifications
happened last time.

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 22:06:22]

On 2015/11/05 22:02:58, Tom Sepez wrote:
> Added Jun.  Jun, please take a look since you may know what local
modifications
> happened last time.

I did a diff between what we had before and 2.5.4:

- I found no real changes in src/ (apart from the dirs that weren't included)
- The include/ changes were replicated here

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 22:20:43]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Depends on https://codereview.chromium.org/1408253007/ landing (and being
rolled).

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.

Also rolls corpus to 45f88c6914fcac26ad930bb0ebbfa468c21db0a5
which includes regenerated corpus expectations.
==========

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 22:21:00]

Description was changed from

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.

Also rolls corpus to 45f88c6914fcac26ad930bb0ebbfa468c21db0a5
which includes regenerated corpus expectations.
==========

to

==========
Update bundled freetype to 2.6.1

Also adds a README.pdfium and 0000-include.patch that
details the local modifications made.

Also rolls testing/corpus to 45f88c6914fcac26ad930bb0ebbfa468c21db0a5
which includes regenerated corpus expectations.
==========

[Lei Zhang, 2015-11-05 22:26:36]

lgtm

[Oliver Chang, 2015-11-05 22:47:02]

Committed patchset #8 (id:60001) manually as
87ee069d05ca06f60d6cfacd9e426739d8f2053d (presubmit successful).