Bug#91261: PROPOSED] modernized rewording of X/Motif policy
On 27-Mar-01, 12:09 (CST), Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
> > a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or
> > non-free (otherwise) with a dependency on OpenMotif, just like other
> > non-free library using software?
>
> Because I'm not sure there is 100% compatibility between the version of
> OSF/Motif that a package may be coded against, and between the version of
> OpenMotif that we ship.
>
> In other words, I'm not willing yet to yank the rug out from under all
> Motif-linked packages and tell them "make sure it works with OpenMotif
> instead".
I wasn't clear enough: I meant that packages built against the
OpenMotif need not supply the static version. Packages linked against
OSF/Motif would still need both static and dynamic. I was envisioning
up to 4 different versions of each package: OSF-dynamic, OSF-static,
Open-dynamic, and Open-static, and didn't see much need for the last of
these.
If it is the case that if the libraries are supposed to be binary
compatible (and some after browsing around openmotif.org, I'm still not
sure), and we'd still have only two: static (presumably either OSF or
Open) and a dynamic (that should work with either) then I completely
agree with your wording.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
Reply to: