On 31-01-13 21:11, Graham Inggs wrote: > Actually, it looks like we should ditch libmotif4 and name the separate > packages libXm4, libUil4 and libMrm4. Agree. > On 31 January 2013 21:41, Graham Inggs <graham@nerve.org.za > <mailto:graham@nerve.org.za>> wrote: > > I've had a look at incorporating > d/patches/05-multiarch-specialcase-libdir-X11.patch into > configure.ac <http://configure.ac> as a build option, and was > thinking that perhaps now is the time to move these platform > independent files, as Sergio suggested, from /usr/lib/X11/bindings > to /usr/share/X11/bindings and into a separate package > motif-common'. I think I agree. > Also, /usr/lib/X11/system.mwmrc can be relocated to > /usr/share/X11, but remain in package mwm. Have to investigate, but I assume for know you know what you are proposing. > At the same time we could split the three shared libraries; > libXm.so.*, libUil.so.* and libMrm.so.* into separate packages. > What do you think of the names libmotif4, libmotifuil4 and > libmotifmrm4? I know the name of the last one is redundant (mrm is > Motif Resource Manager), but it is consistent with the others. See above. > If we are in agreement with the above I'll start working on it. > > I'm warming to the idea of releasing motif to experimental without > printing support, without the missing XmPrint* exports, and without > bumping the soname. > As I wrote previously, I don't believe this will break anything in > Debian. Should we start getting bug reports of broken applications, > at least we'll have a test case for option 3 (Maintain ABI > compatibility, but return failures from xprint methods). Although indeed not allowed, I see your point. Maybe we can justify it by the move to main? Hmm, I guess not, but indeed I believe it doesn't work now anyway as the xprint support is removed etc. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature