lesstif packaging

Brian Ford Brian.Ford@flightsafety.com
Thu Sep 29 15:08:00 GMT 2005

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Nicholas Wourms wrote:

> On 9/27/05, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > > Please go back to bzipping the manpages like they have been in previous
> > > packages.
> >
> > I see now that this was the case.
> >
> > However, the source package that Harold gave me to start with did not do
> > this, nor does the current version of the gbs.  As such, I'd prefer not to
> > support a local gbs patch just to change its default behavior.  If,
> > however, there is consensus that this is "the way it should be" (TM), I'd
> > be happy to submit a gbs patch.
> I don't know anyone who uses the gbs without tweaking it for a
> specific package, which you've already done for lesstif.

That's not the point.  This tweak would be changing a globally accepted

As far as I'm concerned, either we all want to gzip the man pages, or we
all want to bzip2 them.  It makes no sense to me what so ever for this to
be an individual package's choice.  And, it would appear from his response
that cgf prefers to stick with gzip.

> > > Also, please don't just arbitrarily drop the static libs.
> >
> > Why?  None of the dependent xorg X libs are available staticly.  How does
> > having a static lesstif help anyone?  If you can present a reasonable
> > argument for keeping them I will consider it, but no for an unfounded
> > request.  Sorry.
> First, I do not know if it is still the case, but in the past, *some*
> motif applications had problems when linked to the dynamic library.

Most, but only with the initial attempt to make it a dll.

> In fact this issue caused a lot of headaches when lesstif was first
> introduced, but eventually it was fixed for most applications.

All.  If you have a specific example to the contrary, please report it and
I'll take a look.

> A search of the archive ought to show the relevant discussion.

No need.  I was heavily involved in that discussion because at the time I
was serving as proxy lesstif maintainer for Harold.

> While I agree that the lack of static Xorg libs is less than desirable,

I, on the other hand, believe it is perfectly desirable.

> it is has been a general courtesy to provide both static and dynamic
> libs to the developer.  One reason might be that an app uses only a few
> portions of lesstif libs, but the dev doesn't want to require the user
> to install the entire lesstif package.

It would be next to impossible to use only a portion of the lesstif libs,
especially without using any xorg dlls.  You are making a general argument
that does not apply here again.  Please make a specific one or drop it.

> In any event, I'll withdraw that particular request until such time as
> static Xorg libs become available.

Oh..., ok..., good.  I'm pretty sure the never will be.

> I'm not sure what the status is, but I contacted Alexander awhile back
> regarding Xorg static libs and IIRC he told me he was going to look
> into it when he gets a chance.

You realize that Alexander is no longer maintaining Cygwin X, right?

> If he's too busy still, I've been playing around with Xorg's build and
> can probably get it working sooner or later.

That's between you and the new (very busy and currently absent) xorg
maintainer.  If he produces them, or if someone presents a non-generalized
argument, I'll reconsider.

Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot...

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list