Actually, it looks like we should ditch libmotif4 and name the separate packages libXm4, libUil4 and libMrm4.
On 31 January 2013 21:41, Graham Inggs <[email protected]> wrote: > I've had a look at incorporating > d/patches/05-multiarch-specialcase-libdir-X11.patch into configure.ac as > a build option, and was thinking that perhaps now is the time to move these > platform independent files, as Sergio suggested, from /usr/lib/X11/bindings > to /usr/share/X11/bindings and into a separate package motif-common'. > Also, /usr/lib/X11/system.mwmrc can be relocated to /usr/share/X11, but > remain in package mwm. > > At the same time we could split the three shared libraries; libXm.so.*, > libUil.so.* and libMrm.so.* into separate packages. What do you think of > the names libmotif4, libmotifuil4 and libmotifmrm4? I know the name of the > last one is redundant (mrm is Motif Resource Manager), but it is consistent > with the others. > > If we are in agreement with the above I'll start working on it. > > I'm warming to the idea of releasing motif to experimental without > printing support, without the missing XmPrint* exports, and without bumping > the soname. > As I wrote previously, I don't believe this will break anything in > Debian. Should we start getting bug reports of broken applications, at > least we'll have a test case for option 3 (Maintain ABI compatibility, but > return failures from xprint methods). > > >
