Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com>
> Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:20:30 -0600
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
> >>"Jim" == Jim Gettys <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Jim> The project has to be able to have more than one environment installed
> Jim> simultaneously, both for development, and for users, *SINCE IT JUST
> Jim> POSSIBLE TO GET ALL APPLICATIONS MOVED SIMULTANEOUSLY*. The scale
> Jim> of these projects is such there is no other way forward, but to enable
> Jim> both versions to be used side by side, possibly simultaneously.
> Why is this not an issue of backwards compatibility with their
> installed based not a problem to ber solved by these projects? Why
> isn't versioning of interfaces an integral part of their protocol?
> This is a solved problem (DCE RPC solved it before Linux was born,
> really, for one example). I see this as users having to work around
> lack of design and due care for compatibility from the projects.
The X protocol has remained strictly compatible since X11 shipped
What did not maintain compatibility were some of the toolkit libraries
built on top.
So you could/can always run binaries, and everything would/does work.
Turn on that antique Sun or Microvax in the corner and try it: it really
The issue is how to get all applications updated to new versions of those
libraries; there were times when it was not just a recompile.
Cambridge Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation