On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:47:57PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:18:38AM +0930, Ron wrote: > > I think you've mistaken what I've said, and/or what is actually in the > > wx-common package. > > Yes, I was mistaken about the contents of wx-common. > > I had looked at the output of "dpkg -L wx-common", seen the man page > for wx-config, and somehow overlooked the fact that the actual script > does not accompany the man page.
You seem to have also missed that there is no 'actual script'. There are in fact a number of scripts, one for each -dev package installed, and an alternative, which selects the default configuration when no explicit options are specified to override it. > > > At the very least, please consider adding a note to README.Debian > > > in both -dev packages as to where one may find wx-config and wxwin.m4. > > > It took me an hour to find it when I first installed the packages. > > > > There is already a package relationship here, the -dev packages Suggest > > you install wx-common. > > Actually, only libwxgtk2.6-dev has the suggests, not libwxbase2.6-dev. Yes, I believe I noted that previously, and its fixed in git for the next release. I also noted that was only a problem for people who only install wxbase, of which there should be very few, and you weren't one of them ... > The main point, however, is that it is a disservice to users to hide > the .m4 file -- not to mention the man page. Who said anything about hiding? They aren't hidden, but they are SHARED by multiple other packages. If it is surprising to you that such files would be put in a *-common package, then I'm sorry for your inconvenience but this is hardly a novel idiom of the wx packages. $ dpkg -l '*-common' | wc -l 344 > I have never encountered another library that (a) has an autoconf macro > file and (b) does not install it with the -dev package. Then what can I say? congratulations on your broadened horizons ?? 1. there are multiple -dev packages 2. there is one wxwin.m4 and one wx-config man page 3. packages which provide the same file conflict 4. you should be able to install as many wx*-dev flavours as you want Given these constraints your assumption is clearly unsat, and the well known solution is I hope self-evident. > While you may have strong personal feelings about autoconf and static > libraries ... uh, you are grossly off the mark again about what I have said, what I prefer, and how intensely I've directed my efforts at certain things. If you want to discuss this sensibly, please don't sophisticate my opinion or statements with broad sweeping prejudice that isn't my own, m'kay? wxwin.m4 being moronic and wrong doesn't reflect badly on autoconf any more than libtool and automake being moronic and wrong do to their own degree. Every tool can hurt you if you use it foolishly. and if you don't understand why a static wxgtk is simply a segfault waiting to happen on current systems, then I don't see much point in trying to dredge up even more unrelated issues -- let alone how they could somehow make my supposed personal feelings about them responsible for an unrelated mistake that you made. > Debian is better served (IMHO) by common conventions than > by idiosyncrasies. Or as they say, 344 *-common packages can't be wrong! ;) Ordinarily, I'd call the 'million blowflies' argument a fallacy, but in this case, the empirical evidence would be that I quite agree with your HO on this particular point. > > If we can identify a useful note to add, then sure, but this hasn't > > exactly been a heavy faq, so I don't really know where heavier signage > > would be the most help. Are people more likely to actually read a > > README than they are to take notice of a Suggested extra package? > > I suggest add README.Debian to both -dev packages with the line: > > The autoconf macro file wxwin.m4 is found in package wx-common. > > > That would have helped me immensely. Why? Because I routinely ignore > Suggests when installing packages. Debian is better served (IMHO) by common conventions than by idiosyncrasies... ;) I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine just how common using Suggests, Recommends, and Depends are for declaring package relationships -- and what the pitfalls of ignoring them might be. Since you clearly also didn't read the README.Debian provided with the packages that you did install, this line of reasoning is leaving me about as underwhelmed as the miracle of always finding my keys in the last place I look. It's logic that only works in the light of reconstructive hindsight and not much use for prediction of future events. > And even if I didn't, there's nothing in the package description to > illuminate why wx-common is suggested. This package provides common support files not bound to any particular wxWidgets release, such as font metrics required by some ports, and miscellaneous developer aids and binary utilities. ? I've just dropped the reference to font metrics, since they aren't actually provided or needed anymore, but the rest is still a fair description of what belongs and can be found in the wx-common package. And as I said before, if you know exactly what file you are looking for we already have a perfectly functional package search mechanism available to you. If you didn't bother to check what was in this package, how could you possibly know you wouldn't need what was in it when compiling some third party software? If you are going to err on the side of blindly not installing things then you shouldn't be surprised when you see errors relating to things you didn't install not being present. > It was only much later -- when compiling some code -- that I noticed the > lack of wxwin.m4. At that point I didn't recall the Suggests. I did, > however, go looking in /usr/share/doc/libwxbase2.6-dev/ for some clues. Noted. If this becomes a common problem then it should also become obvious where other people look when they don't look in the 'obvious' places. In that event we can take some more constructive concrete action, but the flood of people having the problem you reported has been a long time in the not coming, so I'm not planning to hold my breath until it really happens, or really keen to build some improvised ark beforehand. You seem to be searching for a single external cause for what you seem to have experienced as a traumatic accident. The truth is, there almost never is a single such cause for such things. They are invariably the end result of a chain of many small mistakes. You didn't just drive too fast, you also had a few beers, didn't wear a seatbelt, hadn't checked your tyre pressure for six months, and ran a yellow light in the rain. Things went wrong and it all got confusing fast. Happens to all of us at some time or another. If you're lucky it's not while you're actually riding a motor-vehicle of some sort or playing with things that go boom. If you look back over this, it shouldn't be too hard to count the many small mistakes that wound up ruining your day. Picking one at random and saying "if only..." really won't help the next guy if you aren't actually all winding up in a mangled heap on the very same street corner. If I see that start to happen here, rest assured, I'll be the first to want a great big warning sign up that makes people put down their beer and pay attention rather than making me answer this over and over again. But without that actually being The Problem, adding more text at random just makes it harder for people to find time to read all of the thousands of pages it already takes to explain all of wx's real idiosyncrasies. That you didn't find the solution in the last place you looked doesn't make it the source of the problem or the right place for an answer. Sorry, Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
