Re: Usage of usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps

[Jochen Voss <jvoss2@web.de>]

Hello,

On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:43:22PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> According to FHS the /usr/X11R6/include is for
> development stuff only - so why do many user-oriented packages put their
> stuff there?

There are some references at least to /usr/include/X11/bitmaps
(which is linked to /usr/X11R6/include/X11/bitmaps) in
the X window system documentation.  For example in
/usr/share/doc/xspecs/xmu.txt.gz you may read

    Pixmap XmuLocateBitmapFile(screen, name, srcname, srcnamelen, widthp, heightp, xhotp, yhotp)
	Screen *screen;
	char *name;
	char *srcname;
	int srcnamelen;
	int *widthp, *heightp, *xhotp, *yhotp;

    [...]

    This function reads a file in standard bitmap file format,
    using XReadBitmapFile, and returns the created bitmap.  The
    filename may be absolute, or relative to the global resource
    named bitmapFilePath with class BitmapFilePath.  If the
    resource is not defined, the default value is the build sym-
    bol BITMAPDIR, which is typically
    "/usr/include/X11/bitmaps".
    [...]

And in section 2.5.3 of the Athena Widget Set documentation
(file /usr/share/doc/xspecs/widgets.txt.gz) it is mentioned,
too.  It states

    In addition to the directories specified in the bitmapFilePath
    resource a default directory is searched.  When using POSIX
    the default directory is /usr/include/X11/bitmaps.

So at least the /usr/include/X11/bitmaps directory still makes
sense because it is the default for resource converters and the
'XmuLocateBitmapFile' function.

I do not think that /usr/include/X11/pixmaps is mentioned in
any X standard.  I think many programs use it, because it
seems logical when compared to /usr/include/X11/bitmaps.

Jochen
-- 
                                         Omm
                                      (0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html