On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:24:31AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: [...] > > Presumably there was some reason that earlier, these extra libs were > > only required on powerpc? > > I don't think that is a valid premise. I think they probably were.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. In my understanding, as of X 4.2.1, the extra libraries like libICE.so and libSM.so needed to be explicitly linked (via the arguments to gcc) only on powerpc; on other arches the linker was able to figure out to link them in automatically via the lib dependencies of libXm.so (Lesstif). That is, on any arch other than powerpc, the linker flags would look like "-lXm ... -lX11" and on powerpc, they needed to look like "-lXm ... -lX11 -lSM -lICE". If that understanding is wrong (I wouldn't be surprised if it is, as it was derived from the cernlib upstream lib dependency script), please correct me again. >From what James Troup said in a followup, it looks like the weird errors were due not to a new requirement that libSM and libICE be explicitly linked in, but rather due to a problem that left apt or dpkg thinking libice6 was installed even though it was actually not. So I guess the -lSM -lICE flags are still not explicitly required, and my question becomes, is it _better_ to include those flags even if not explicitly required? > Yes, given the above linkage, you need to Build-Depend on: > libxp-dev, libxt-dev, libxext-dev, libxpm-dev, libx11-dev, libsm-dev, > libice-dev. Cernlib depends upon libXp, libXext, libXpm, libSM and libICE only through Lesstif, not explicitly. So I presume that I should Build-Depend upon: lesstif2-dev|lesstif-dev, x-dev|xlibs-dev, libx11-dev|xlibs-dev, libxt-dev|xlibs-dev (where in each case the alternative is for woody back-portability); does that seem correct? thanks and regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
