On 10 February 2008 at 20:43, "Nathan Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I recall that, but for building, we'd still need the dev > packages, correct? Or, would the build work with the libxtst6 package?
Generally, yes, you would need the dev package for building although some code has hard coded prototypes I think. I have no objections to this. I do think relying on dev packages at runtime is a very bad idea. We test with specific versions we should load them and *only* them. That said, the compromise of loading version specific then unversioned if that fails is better than what we have today so I'd be happy with that for now. -Mark. > On Feb 10, 2008 2:39 PM, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran > > > into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part > > > of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build > > > pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating > > > it. Once I installed that package it built. > > > > I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying > > on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally > > only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known > > good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6). It may be > > necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if* > > someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible > > and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned > > libraries. > > > > Regards, > > Mark. > > > > > > >
