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

Re: Eclipse: motif vs. lesstif?



Hallo Bear,

* Bear Giles wrote:
>I don't think this rises to the level of a 'bug,' but maybe 
>somebody here knows the answer.  Why does eclipse depend on motif 
>instead of motif | lesstif?

The eclipse.org swt FAQ states, that lestiff does not implement
everything what swt needs:

--8<---------:- snip -:---------8<---------:- snip -:---------8<--
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/~checkout~/platform-swt-home/faq.html
Q: Why do I get the warning "XmParseMappingCreate() is not implemented
yet" on linux/motif? 
A: This warning is shown if you're accessing installed LessTif
libraries instead of the shipped OpenMotif libraries. Although Eclipse
will start fine with LessTif libraries, its subsequent operation is
not optimal. If you see this warning, add the eclipse install
directory to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH before launching eclipse. For
example, if you are using csh: 
setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH /opt/eclipse:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}
--8<---------:- snip -:---------8<---------:- snip -:---------8<--

Another thing is, that you get this here:
jan@snoopy:~/debian/src/kickpim$ dpkg -L libmotif3 |grep "Xm"
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXm.so.3.0.1
/usr/X11R6/lib/libXm.so.3
jan@snoopy:~/debian/src/kickpim$ dpkg -L lesstif2 |grep "Xm"
/usr/lib/libXm.so.2.0.1
/usr/lib/libXm.so.2

So I think you have to compile it agains one or the other and can't
interchange them before runtime. 

I must admit, that I haven't tried to compile swt-motif against
lesstif, having read the above notice. As I come from java, I also
have not so much knowledge with native compiling and the openmotif
thing worked out of the box.

If anyone can give me a idea how to change that, I will try and test.
Having it build with lesstif would give me one headache less when I
package the 3.0 Stream, which will feature swt-gtk in main and
therefor in a different source package...

Jan
-- 
Jan Schulz                     jasc@gmx.net
     "Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."



Reply to: