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

Re: First motif commits

On 21-01-13 20:54, Graham Inggs wrote:
> If you want.  Do you want to start a new thread there?

Just continue.

> I still have the source code for every Debian package that depends on
> libmotif-dev and lesstif2-dev on my PC, so I ran 'grep -i
> XmPrintPopupPDM -l -r *' for each of the six missing symbols you listed
> previously and did not find a single match.
> Good news is we can't break anything in Debian if we hack PrintS.c, bad
> news is we don't have any applications with which to test.

Fully ack.

> Ok, let's try 3 and see where that takes us.  I'm not keen on 2 because
> there are still proprietary applications being used that need libXm.so.3
> and libXm.so.4.

Yes, but it is still easy for system administrators to add the symlinks
themselves, if they feel comfortable with it.

> I've just come across this:
> http://bugs.motifzone.net/long_list.cgi?buglist=1545
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229409
> It seems Red Hat deprecated Xprint in 2007, it may be that the
> "official" Motif libraries are built without Xprint support.

Yes, I understand. Debian also removed xprint from the repository. But
the glue layer libxp is still there to PREVENT problems. This means that
you don't have printing support anyway, but that things don't just break.

> Maybe we have to drop the XmPrint functions in order to be binary
> compatible?

Nope, ADDITIONAL symbols is never a problem. Please read the policy
chapter 8 [1] for some background if you didn't already, especially 8.6.2.

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html

> What do you think of releasing another openmotif 2.3.3 package including
> the three patches from Ubuntu?
> http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/multiverse/o/openmotif/openmotif_2.3.3-6ubuntu1/changelog

No need. I think we will be uploading shortly, and then these changes
will be gone anyway. Unless you fear that it might still take a long
time. I don't think these patches warrant a release-freeze [2]. As it
is, we are still waiting for an unblock of 2.3.3-7 anyway ... uhm, oops,
I still have to file that one I see.

[2] http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html

> If you are in agreement, is there anything I can do to assist?

So unless you can convince me otherwise, I don't think we should do this.

> In particular, I'd like the libmotif3 and display manager entries.  I do
> not know why Ubuntu needs the bin-utils-gold patch, and Debian doesn't
> (Debian doesn't need it in 2.3.4 because this patch is against a demo).

Unfortunately, "liking" is not on the list of freeze exceptions. I think
Debian would also need the bin-utils-gold patch if it were using the
gold linker. I believe Ubuntu actively tests for that.

Actually, I hope Logan Rosen checked my patch in 2.3.3-6 as I think it
is flawed. That is why I uploaded 2.3.3-7.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: