Okay. That explain a version linked against dynamic motif libraries. But
why should a user use the statically linked version? Isn't the lestiff
version exactly for people who do not own motif?
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
email@example.com | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
firstname.lastname@example.org | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
>From: James R. Van Zandt [SMTP:email@example.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 04, 1997 2:13 AM
>Cc: Die Adresse des Empfängers ist unbekannt.
>Subject: Re: ddd?
>Michael Meskes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>Now I understand. And I guess you cannot put one binary package into
>>contrib and the other into unstable with one source.
>>I just wonder why we still need the motif versions. Is lesstiff not
>Even if lestiff can be used with ddd, other programs may still require
>Motif. Can the same ddd binary be run with shared libraries from
>either lestiff or Motif? If so, I think a user should have the option
>of installing Motif instead. (I think this could be done with the
>"Provides:" mechanism, or maybe "alternatives".) If not, then I think
>a separate binary package should be provided.
>Since I spent the $100 to get Motif, I want to get some good out of it.
> - Jim Van Zandt
>TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
>Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .