[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fltk before freeze

On Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 02:11:32PM -0500, Gregory S. Stark wrote:

> they're in the last stages of a freeze before the fltk 1.0 release and
> most if not all of the changes are bug fixes, so I would think it would be
> ok, even a good idea to update.

 Ok. There are some important bug fixes. I have:

 $ dpkg -l libfltk0 | grep ^Version
 Version: 0.99.19981006-0.2

 and I'd really like to have a more recent snapshot distributed with slink.
 But the most recent one (19981110 or something like that) has proven to be
 a royal pain in the butt because someone in the new development team
 decided to change radically the way the shared library is produced
 (probably the same person that took the time to make the internal
 documentation 'politically correct') 

 In a nutshell, getting debian/rules build to produce a shared library and a
 static library is one of those excersice-left-to-the-reader kind of
 problems. I was halfway thru it last Sunday (I had planned to send you the
 patches to save you some work) when my hard disk decided to take a walk to
 the place where hard disks go after they have served their MFT.

> However, there have been a few modifications to some structures
> necessitating an soname bump. So if I switch to a new snapshot it'll build
> a package named libfltk1, not libfltk0. Soooo, I'll have to ask the
> archive maintainer to remove libftlk0.

 In the most recent snapshot I saw, they didn't use any soname at all. But
 you are right, the soname should be libfltk.so.1

> Anyways, no packages are actually using fltk yet (argh, we still have forms
> programs in non-free, the whole point of packaging fltk was to enable us to
> move them to main!)

 Forget about that. Bill Spitnak (/me mumbles something about DD) did.
 There's some non-trivial ammount of work involved to get an xforms program
 to compile with fltk. fltk is FAR better and interested authors should take
 the time to port their code...

> and the new snapshot should be more bug-free than the old,



Reply to: