Re: Shared graphics libs & header file locations...
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> > lipbm (pbm, pgm, ppm, pnm)
>
> I personally have no burning desire to go walking on the coals that
> are the pbm packages. However, I seem to remember someone stating
> that they were intending to repackage one or the other, so it might be
> sensible to create the new package in such a way as to make these
> shared libraries available.
Burning coals? I've found libpbm incredibly useful. I've had to
generate pictures from code several times to illustrate things, and the
p.m format is so trivial (raw with a short header). They're really
quite useful. I'd be willing to generate this, or netpbm actually, as
I think it has a few useful additions.
> > libtiff (tiff)
>
> This would need to be done fresh. As I get the impression that it's
> pretty stable, I'd be willing to do it.
As I mentioned, I've already compiled a shared lib version for my own
use. Adding the debian files and uploading is a 30 minute job.
> Last time we had a discussion like this (pbm, I think) I seem to
> remember that the general feeling was that special subdirectories
> should be deprecated, but that special exceptions could be made given
> sufficient evidence of benefit.
There are probably about a dozen headers all together. My suggestion
of putting them all into a gr directory stems from a desire for
compatibility with libgr, not for fear of header clutter.
Source written for libgr would then compile only with a Makefile change
(new library to link to), not changes to the code (changing '#include
<gr/pbm.h>' to '#include <pbm.h>').
Does anybody have any rabid
Reply to: