>>>>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:34:10 +0100, Danny Backx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Danny> You're the first one to complain, or should I say inquire? I think there are two kinds of Linux user: those who use prebuilt packages and those who regularly build things themselves. Binary incompatibilty affects the former group worst and I think it has only recently become an issue for Lesstif because distros like Mandrake 9.0 contain the newer version. Danny> Juding from CVS logs, I removed Xm/ManagerP.h from the 2.0 Danny> tree because it didn't differ much from the 1.2 version. Danny> I could have put an #ifdef in, but I am usually inclined not Danny> to do that, especially in files that get installed by 'make Danny> install'. Danny> So theoretically it is possible to fix this, but I'm not Danny> happy about the obvious fix. Danny> Do you have a problem with that ? Agreed -- now that is has changed, it is probably better to stay with the new binary layout, otherwise it will just break binary compatibility again! Danny> We're not advocating binary compatibility all that much, and Danny> sometimes include files do change, even between minor Danny> releases. The XmFontList changes are a perfect example of that. OK, I guess I've just been lucky so far. It just means that our users will need to install a particular version of Lesstif. Is XmFontList really a binary incompatibilty for users' code? Maybe within Lesstif itself, but the type is a pointer so code that uses it doesn't depend on the structure. The problem with the widget layout is that it gets captured within subclasses. __Martin _______________________________________________ Lesstif mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://terror.hungry.com/mailman/listinfo/lesstif
