On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:03:54 -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > > --- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:25:48 +0200, Alexander Gottwald wrote: > > > That is a windows problem. The XFree libraries are in fact > > versioned. > > > (libXaw.so.6.1 vs libXaw.so.7.0) > > > Alexander, > > > > You've hit a sore spot here. The issue of Xft1 vs Xft2 was only the > > starting of a larger picture. > > > > Your right in the fact that all libraries are versioned, and we > > don't > > respect that for any library. libX11.a should really be > > libX11-6_2.a etc > > or some equivalent of. > > > > We also need to consider backwards compatibility as to not break > > older > > applications. > > > > I've fixed the immediate problem and can re-instate Xft1. But any > > want to pipe up with anything on this topic ? > > Like it or not, if we make the switch we will break binary > compatibility. This is, of course, because runtime libraries cannot > be symlinked on Windows. Still, this is something that will have to > be done sooner or later (again perhaps for the 4.3.0 release?). > However, I think the benefits in the longrun will outweigh the > incovience of a few questions from people caught in this switch. > I'll let Harold voice his mind on this now...
We don't have to symlink - we can copy libX11-6_2.dll to libX11.dll etc to maintain compatibility and bug fixes to these kinds of libraries. A small script here will do the trick. But I think we really need to do this for 4.3.0 and just update the FAQ for those caught in the switch - like you say. Alan.
