Re: Neat gtk/gdk-imlib pain
On 1 Feb 1999, Jim Pick wrote:
> I'm not sure if you need to provide the original symbol - I think
> ld.so is smart enough to pull the appropriate symbols from the
> appropriate libraries (providing their symbol maps were set up
> correctly). There's at least 50 pages of documentation explaining all
> the various details - I don't pretend to understand it. I think it's
> one of those things you can only figure out by doing it.
<shrug> It is not something I would hold my breath on, I don't think it is
likely, but hey, might work.
> > There are currently 72 things that link against imlib. I suspect that
> > about half were linked with the 'old' imlib and half with the 'new' imlib.
>
> That's to be expected. The current situation demands that all those
> apps should be rebuilt everytime gtk or glib breaks compatibility.
But they are stable releases using the stable gtk stuff - it seems crazy
to just abandon them. I can see how you'd not want to deal with
inter-relations between the various devel libraries, but ignoring the
stable stuff is a Bad Idea (TM)
You certainly have to deal with it when you release the new stable GTK so
you might as well work it out in the devel releases.
Ideally the devel GTK/etc -should- co-exist with the stable stuff, if it
doesn't then I think that is a serious problem. I can tolerate apps from
potato breaking left and right, but old apps from slink? Bleck.
Jason
Reply to: