On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 08:42:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:59:32PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > Can you elaborate on that? Break in what way? It could find the > > > wrong include path? > > > > As I read the comment, it sounds as if you're thinking that the macro > > that doesn't check for Xt can replace the one that does. > > I'm sorry, but I really can't follow you ... Is there a need to > check that Xt is exists for all packages?
no. Add a macro that does exactly what you want. > To create the macro, they just had to pick an include file > and try to do something with it to see if it exists, and > they should have picked a more general one like X.h or > Xlib.h. > > If the package in question needs to check that Xt is > available, it should use a macro for that, and not a > general one that searches for the include and library > paths. Given that the macro's been working as described for about 10 years, if it's suddenly changed, it'll break things that rely on its assumption that X11 and Xt are distributed together. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
pgpdxRuZqUUEc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
