Re: proposed libxt and libxt-flat issues

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jack Howarth <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Daniel,
>      The proposed libxt/libxt-flat packaging in your experimental, which
> places both in %p rather than buried subdirectories, would seem to require
> either...
>
> every single package building against Xquartz in fink have a BuildDepends
> on libxt and a Depends on libxt-shlibs added (which is a real pain)
>
> or
>
> fink be enhanced to interpret the a BuildDepends on x11-dev as implying
> both x11-dev and libxt and to interpret a Depends on x11-shlibs as implying
> both a x11-shlibs and libxt-shlibs
>
> The second approach, to automate the process, will require that libxt and
> libxt-flat be allowed to co-exist by burying the devel files of libxt-flat.
> The motif packages would then just prefix the path to this buried
> libxt-flat directory (similar to what the currently proposed packaging on
> tracker does).
>            Jack
>

Alexander noted on fink irc that we don't want BuildDependsOnly packages to
co-exist. However, if the libxt-flat package used buried directories for
its development files, there would be no reason for it to remain as
BuildDependsOnly: true.

In the absence of automating the addition of libxt to the BuildDepends and
libxt-shlibs to the Depends for x11 packages, the builds x11 packages will
become non-determininsitc depending on whether the user happened to left
libxt or libxt-flat installed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel