Why even bother with 2.0 ?
TOG has deliberately created incompatibilities between 2.0 and 2.1,
I see no reason to support and/or promote 2.0.
Installing both 1.2 and 2.1 in one directory is a very interesting
idea, but it might be a challenge for libtool as well. Has it been
designed for this ?
Danny
Alexander Mai wrote:
> >We've been installing more than one version of LessTif for a while now,
> >to be able to work with 2.* while still allow linking applications
> >against the older library versions. (Some apps come dynamically linked
> >against 1.*, or at least they used to.)
> >
> >The question now is whether we can drop this multi-version thing ?
> >
> >The reason is very simple : libtool doesn't really support it
> >(I'm not saying it should, it's a silly feature probably).
> >
> >So can we drop multiple installations and install 2.1 by default ?
> >
> >Opinions welcome !
>
> Ok, first a question:
> what happens if we would simply try to install two versions
> in the same directory?
>
> One argument against the 2.1 default version was:
> our 2.x tree as it was called not too long ago was known
> to be incomplete. Nowadays still the 2.0 (won't be ever completed
> probably) and 2.1 trees lack functionality and perhaps
> couple of interfaces (we had to one this week, some
> definitions to Xm.h earlier since 0.93.0 even to
> ensure that all 2.x applications _link_, not even
> talking about _work_ ...)
> >From my point of view it was quite unlikely that we would be
> able to maintain binary compatibility during the further
> development of the 2.x stuff. So I proposed to use the
> 2.0 tree as a default, and once 2.1 is frozen move on to it.
--
Danny Backx ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home page : http://users.skynet.be/danny.backx
Projects: LessTif (http://www.lesstif.org)
Oleo (http://www.gnu.org/software/oleo/oleo.html)
