On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Philip Brown<[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, the specific case. The reasoning goes like this: There's the >> _gtk2 package. It essentially contains shared libraries[1], plus a >> header file and a few scripts. The other two are the common package, >> and a devel one. I can't really imagine there being _gtk1 or _qt >> packages; the _gtk2 one is basically the runtime package and should be >> named _rt. > > Well, funny you should say that. because as I remember, there USED TO BE a > gtk1 based version of it. > that is why the current one is named _gtk2. > There was a time when both versions were available as CSW packages. > > I believe it was decided that the gtk1 version was no longer worth > maintaining, so it was dropped. So, just the gtk2 back-end was left around. > > So, right now, there is a wxwidgets "front end", and a wxwidgets "back end" > that is gtk2. > You are looking to rename the back end to "_rt". However, that seems to make > the assumption, that gtk2 is the "one, only, true 'run-time'" for wxwidgets. > This assumption is completely false. > wxwidgets can also be Motif based, for example. > and to get really down and dirty, there is even a pure X11 backend, from > what I understand. > ( http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/faqx11.htm ) > > So, in summary: the current wxwidgets packages naming, should be left > as-is.
OK, I understand. My exact assumption was that while there is a choice of backends, there wouldbe only one backend compiled at a time. But as you say, there's potential for more. I'm going to keep the package division as-is. Thanks for the clarification! Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
