On 9/27/05, Brian Ford wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > > Nicholas, > > You have been around here long enough to know that personal email is not > the way to address these issues. As such, I have forwarded this reply to > the proper mailing list and set the Reply To appropriately. Please honor > this. The lack of doing so makes it less likely that your request will be > addressed. Thanks.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm lazy, so sue me... ;-) > > Please go back to bzipping the manpages like they have been in previous > > packages. > > I see now that this was the case. > > However, the source package that Harold gave me to start with did not do > this, nor does the current version of the gbs. As such, I'd prefer not to > support a local gbs patch just to change its default behavior. If, > however, there is consensus that this is "the way it should be" (TM), I'd > be happy to submit a gbs patch. I don't know anyone who uses the gbs without tweaking it for a specific package, which you've already done for lesstif. > > Also, please don't just arbitrarily drop the static libs. > > Why? None of the dependent xorg X libs are available staticly. How does > having a static lesstif help anyone? If you can present a reasonable > argument for keeping them I will consider it, but no for an unfounded > request. Sorry. First, I do not know if it is still the case, but in the past, *some* motif applications had problems when linked to the dynamic library. In fact this issue caused a lot of headaches when lesstif was first introduced, but eventually it was fixed for most applications. A search of the archive ought to show the relevant discussion. While I agree that the lack of static Xorg libs is less than desirable, it is has been a general courtesy to provide both static and dynamic libs to the developer. One reason might be that an app uses only a few portions of lesstif libs, but the dev doesn't want to require the user to install the entire lesstif package. In any event, I'll withdraw that particular request until such time as static Xorg libs become available. I'm not sure what the status is, but I contacted Alexander awhile back regarding Xorg static libs and IIRC he told me he was going to look into it when he gets a chance. If he's too busy still, I've been playing around with Xorg's build and can probably get it working sooner or later. Right now I'm working on more interesting things (like shared gcc/g++/gcj/g77 libs). Cheers, Nicholas