Re: Official protest against bug 1060 / was: Re: Away for a few days..

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 20 August 2004 17:38, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> As I remember there are two arguments against this change:
>    - Some people want the ability to build without Xprint support, which
>      they have had in previous releases.
>    - Many people consider Xaw to be legacy code that should not be
>      enhanced further, since doing so encourages use when we should
>      be discouraging it.  (Though no one was so much in favor of
>      discouraging Xaw that they were volunteering to port all the Xaw
>      apps in the tree to a newer toolkit.)

Perhaps the idea there is that the Xaw apps in the tree are not, in fact, 
used.  Either they provide no useful functionality, or substitutes using 
modern toolkits already exist so there's no motivation to port them.

ldd tells me the Xaw users are:

bitmap editres listres viewres xbiff xcalc xclipboard xclock xconsole xcutsel
xditview xedit xfd xfontsel xgc xkbvleds xkbwatch xload xlogo xmag xman
xmessage xmh xmore xorgcfg xpxthelloworld xsm xterm xvidtune

Of those, I suspect only xterm and xorgcfg receive any serious use, and that 
neither one is the sort of app you'd be printing from.

- ---

Look, Xprint is a feature, like Xinerama or DRI.  You should be able to build 
without it if you want to.  #1060 is about not being forced to include Xprint 
support if the user doesn't want it.  #define BuildXprintLib NO in host.def 
is a reasonable indicator that the user doesn't want it.

- - ajax
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBJoE6W4otUKDs0NMRAhjMAJ9AAOBzeHvBdvwCAbDFFsBusdnm5wCgysP4
hVl5dYJUpCFSpNLfxQVj1Dk=
=aCyd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----