On 13 March 2013 22:14, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote: > On 03/12/13 22:19, Graham Inggs wrote: > > Shouldn't the xprint related symbols have been commented out so we don't > > get the #MISSING warnings? > > That is fine. I thought I had done that. >
After asking that question I tried to do more reading up symbols, but I found the information very vague, especially about (optional) symbols. Out of interest, why are there so many other (optional) symbols? How did you determine they were optional? On 13 March 2013 22:37, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote: > On 03/13/13 09:46, Graham Inggs wrote: > > I've cleaned up some things, added copyright info for > > custom_mwm_badge.png and updated the changelog. > > Good. Are you sure you own the complete copyright of that file? I.e. > didn't somebody else have the original copyright? > I guess Canonical might have the copyright on the white circle image, I'll check in the sources of unity-greeter. I'm not sure about the four squares, I based that on the look of the icon for Xterm that is displayed in MWM [1]. > I saw you dropped them in the mean time. Fine. However, from your story > I understand that motif needs to link to libxft. If you want to be sure > it is linked, please DON'T assume it is pulled in via your depends, but > explicitely depend on it. In general, a depends of your package may > cease to depend on the library (maybe it is optional, or a replacement > is found) and you get strange FTBFS or worse in a case like this, your > package builds different than you intend. > We still build-depends on libxft-dev and I am confident that we do not need libfreetype6-dev and libxrender-dev, as Motif does not get linked to these libraries, and although the freetype.h and Xrender.h headers are currently checked by ac_find_xft.m4, their presence does not affect the build. I do see your point for libfontconfig1-dev though, Motif does call some fc* functions in lib/Xm/XmRenderT.c and we do need to link to -lfontconfig. Sounds ok, but I thought originally you created your patch to save on > build time. Do you now think it is worth it to distribute the demos? Oh, > wait, you only mean the source code here. Than I think I like the > "examples" better as name then demos, but I let it up to you. > Agreed, examples is more descriptive. I'm not going to make this a priority, and I don't mind if we end up releasing 2.3.4-2 without them. As you mentioned previously, the examples are in the source package if anyone wants them. Shall I email upstream now and see if they are interested in support from the community? [1] http://xwinman.org/screenshots/mwm-matt.gif
