Re: Xdvi and XFree86 4.0
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:26:57 +0100 (MET) > From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Nicolai Langfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Vojta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Xdvi and XFree86 4.0 > > [Cc: added for xdvi(k) maintainers] > > I compiled and installed the new XFree86 4.0. It seems to work fine, but > > teTeX's XDVI does not. It gives error message: > > > > Error: XtMakeGeometryRequest - parent not composite > > > > Do I have to recompile the teTeX, or what is the problem? > > I have no idea. Did you check the release notes of XFree86 4.0? Probably the first thing to check would be whether recompiling fixes it. --Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xdvi's buttons are missing
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:14:53 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Nicolai Langfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Vojta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: xdvi's buttons are missing
>
> [Added xdvi + xdvik maintainers to Cc:]
> > I have "updated" my system to RedHat 7.0, and now my xdvi does not
> > have any of the buttons (Quit and friends).
>
> I can confirm that. It even happens for me if I recompile xdvi. Running
> xdvi against the XFree-4.01 shared libs shows this problem. Running the
> same binary arainst the XFree-3.?? libraries works ok.
Have you tried --
plain (non-k) xdvi?
xdvi +expert
the 'x' keystroke
What happens in each of the above cases?
--Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xdvi's buttons are missing
> Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:36:02 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: xdvi's buttons are missing > > > Have you tried -- > > plain (non-k) xdvi? > > I just did (for xdvi-22.29): > ./configure --with-tetex > make > TEXMFMAIN=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf TEXMFCNF=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/web2c >./xdvi /tmp/small2e > and the buttens were not missing. > > One warning (error?) was displayed, though: > ./xdvint_line: No such file or directory In what context? > > xdvi +expert > > the 'x' keystroke > > No buttons with xdvik. Or, more precise, the place for the buttinlist > is there, but it is empty. Is this different from what you were reporting earlier? --Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xdvi's buttons are missing
> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:29:00 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: xdvi's buttons are missing > > > > One warning (error?) was displayed, though: > > > ./xdvint_line: No such file or directory > > > > In what context? > > Hm... What do you mean by context? Hardware/software configuration? What I meant was, did this occur during ./configure, during make, or while running, and what was printed out just before and just after? (Not that it matters anymore; see below.) > > Is this different from what you were reporting earlier? > > No. I just wwanted tgive you the information that "x" keystroke or "+expert" > does not cure the problem. OK. > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:01:10 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: xdvi-22.29 > > button problem: > > I have had a closer look at the button problem of xdvik and concluded the > following: > - the problem is caused by compiling against the XFree86-3.X headers > and running against the shared libs of XFree86-4.01 > - there is no difference between plain xdvi or xdvik regarding this > bug (even though I have claimed that only xdvi works ok with > XFree86-4.01 in an earlier message. That was wrong.) > > Thomas In that case, I think the advice is not to compile against the 3.X headers if you want to run it with the 4.0 shared libraries. Headers should be compatible with libraries, and I don't see any way around this. --Paul
RE: redefinition of `struct option'
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Paul Vojta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: redefinition of `struct option' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > That is a very good question. I do not know. > > gcc usually tells you. Right after the diagnostic message, it should give > another diagnostic message telling where the "struct union" was > defined earlier. I misspoke. It only does that for cpp symbols. Run gcc using the same options as before, but change "-c" to "-E", and send me the output. --Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: redefinition of `struct option'
> From: "Schwenk, Jeanie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Thomas Esser'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: redefinition of `struct option' > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:05:38 -0700 > > That is a very good question. I do not know. gcc usually tells you. Right after the diagnostic message, it should give another diagnostic message telling where the "struct union" was defined earlier.
