Re: virtual packages and X11 vs. X11R<specific_number>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 16:15:50 PDT
From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Would it make sense to further virtualize X11R5 and X11R6 and
provide a virtual X11 package for use as a dependency? If we
don't do this, what happens when X11R7 is released? Must all
X11R6-dependent packages be updated?
Well, the X11R5 and X11R6 libraries weren't compatible, and it is
likely the X11R6 and X11R7 libraries won't be, either. In this
case, the packages will have to be updated. We don't want people
thinking they can use an X11R6 package under X11R7, or vice versa.
If the X11R6 and X11R7 packages *are* compatible, we can make the
X11R7 package provide the virtual package X11R6 in addition to X11R7.
It's perfectly reasonable to do this *if* they are really compatible.
And, on a somewhat-related issue:
/usr/include/X11 -> ../X11R6/include/X11
/usr/bin/X11 -> ../X11R6/bin
/usr/lib/X11 -> ../X11R6/lib/X11
However
/usr/X11R6/lib doesn't appear to be the target of a symlink.
/usr/X11R6/lib contains X11 libraries needed at package build time.
How about something like
/usr/X11/lib -> /usr/X11R6/lib
to allow decoupling library-search paths from X11R6 specificity for
developers and maintainers of X11 packages.
In the standard X11 distribution, /usr/lib/X11 contains support files,
which we place in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11. Therefore, /usr/lib/X11 should
point to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11, as it does.
It might be reasonable to create symbolic links in /usr/lib for the
libraries (i.e., /usr/lib/libX11.a -> /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.a), for
the reasons you describe. I suggested this in the past, but I don't
think many people liked the idea.
Reply to: