harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [build] is libxtst-dev a recently added requirement
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:26:14 GMT

On 10 February 2008 at 20:43, "Nathan Beyer" <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah, I recall that, but for building, we'd still need the dev
> packages, correct? Or, would the build work with the libxtst6 package?

Generally, yes, you would need the dev package for building although
some code has hard coded prototypes I think.  I have no objections to
this.

I do think relying on dev packages at runtime is a very bad idea.  We
test with specific versions we should load them and *only* them.

That said, the compromise of loading version specific then unversioned
if that fails is better than what we have today so I'd be happy with
that for now.

-Mark.

> On Feb 10, 2008 2:39 PM, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran
> > > into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part
> > > of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build
> > > pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating
> > > it. Once I installed that package it built.
> >
> > I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying
> > on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally
> > only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known
> > good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6).  It may be
> > necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if*
> > someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible
> > and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned
> > libraries.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Mark.
> >
> >
> >
> 



Mime
View raw message