On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Evan Laforge <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I see that libXrandr depends on libX11, libXext, libXrender, and libc >>> and that libXft depends on all of these and others. Thus, I conclude >>> that using libXrandr does not require additional libraries >>> on the platform besides itself. >>> Is that correct ? >> >> I think so - but the key here (as it is for XFT too, of course) is that is >> it is on your system at build time, the binary will expect to be able to >> load it (XFT | XRandR) at runtime, and of course this may not be true if you >> run on a different machine. >> >> I think what Matthias was suggesting is that we might be bale to test for >> XRandR at runtime and load it where it is available, and use it, but if it >> is not available, then we fall back to the existing behaviour on X11 systems >> instead. > > Isn't the usual thing to define HAS_XRANDR or something and #ifdef the > the bits that depend on it? > > Not that I'm a fan of yet more ifdef, but it seems simpler than some > dynamic loading malarkey. I like fltk for its bias toward static > linking!
Oh sorry, I understand now what you mean. You can disregard the above :) I guess if it means a statically linked xrandr using fltk program would then fail on X11 without xrandr, with no option to compile a version that works on both, then yeah that would be unfortunate. I guess some dynamic testing of X's installed extensions would be in order. But surely that's nothing new for X extensions, right? _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
