Very simple. If you want/need both versions, cd lesstif, mkdir 1.2, cd 1.2,
../configure --enable-default-1.2, make install, cd .., mkdir 2.0, cd 2.0,
../configure --enable-default-2.0, make install. At this point 1.2 has been
installed for any legacy apps that you have installed, and 2.0 is the default
that new apps are compiled against. On all platforms that I can think of,
libXm.so.1.2 and libXm.so.2.0 can survive together, with new apps being linked
against libXm.so, whatever that is symlinked to, which in the above case would
be libXm.so.2.0. Installing libXm.2.0 after libXm.so.1.2 will not get rid of
libXm.1.2, simply override libXm.so. Now what to have as our default version is
much more of a question. If the Xm.h that ends up installed claims to be 1.2,
we have damn near all of the functionality. However if it ends up as 2.0, or
2.1, then we are not as complete. We will _never_ have 2.0 compatibility, 2.1
we have a chance at.
Also if the maintainers of OpenMotif keep springing things like embedded open
motif on us, we don't have a chance. I'm still not sure what the difference
between "embedded open motif" and "open motif" is, it looks like the same CVS
tree to me. We are also _way_ past the deadline that, whoever the hell owns
Motif, set out for further opening up Motif set when they opened up Motif. I
don't remember ever getting a satisfactory answer to any of the questions that
many of the LessTif list subscribers asked when OpenMotif first appeared!! I
have even helped OpenMotif, by adding in tooltips and an autoconf build, but I
have never noticed ICS, the maintainers of the OpenMotif CVS tree, promote
either of these features. The only help I ever recall seeing to someone having
trouble building OpenMotif is to read the README.ICS, which tells you to do
something that I was never able, or willing, to do to make it work.
Bottom line, is that if I was just starting out, I probably wouldn't touch
Motif/Lesstif with a ten foot pole. Of course I wouldn't realize that it has
benefits that the newer toolkits won't have for another 10 years or so.
You are correct with the 2.0 vs. 2.1. No one is _ever_ going to write a CSText
(or whatever that is) since it has already been dropped.
On 28-Aug-01 at 19:32, Danny Backx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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)
>
>
