Re: Packaging questions regarding plan
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > > What about the motif-dummy thingie we discussed? How can I run plan having
> > > Motif and not lesstif installed? Can you make sure it doesn't Depends: on
> > > lesstif, but rather on a virtual package 'motif-libs' which lesstif, and a
> > > to-be-created-dummy package for Motif owners, would provide. Is that doable?
> > > CC'ed this to the virtual-package-list maintainer for comments.
> >
> > That's a good idea! AFAIK, Motif 1.x and 2.x are quite different.
> > Shouldn't we use two different virtual package names for these major
> > versions? (You can't use "versions" of a virtual package, yet.)
> >
>
> I don't think that support for different Moitfs are needed.
> All known software despite of being compiled with Motif 2.0 does not
> use features not present in Motif 1.2
> The reason for this is that "big unices" does not have Motif 2.0 actively
> shiped from the vendors yet and using Motif 2.0 features would make your
> application imposible to port. *When* situation changes, I don't think
> that anyone using Motif for i386 Linux would have Motif 1.2
>
> (And franckly speaking, 2.0 also. By that time all vendors will be
> shipping 2.1 which would _hopefully_ be compiled against glibc for Linux)
>
> Alex Y.
>
But things linked against Motif 2.0 cannot link against and run with a
Motif 1.2 library. Take for example nedit-dmotif, currently in
contrib. Try to run it on Lesstif and it won't work, because it will
not find a Motif 2.0 library. Lesstif provides a Motif 1.2 lib.
When I compiled nedit, I used a Motif 2.0 library. I agree with
Chris that we should have both a motif12 and a motif20 virtual package.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.inconnect.com/~andersen/
email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: