<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > Why? Does this tradition serve any purpose? Could it be that you want
> > it for non-free motif libraries?
>
> Is it a sin? :)
> I already gave some of the rationalization and I didn't mention motif.
No, not a sin - I was just trying to imagine why you opposed this change.
> It is because I suspect there would be no problem to install it if we decided
> to go with compatibility symlinks.
There would be no problem?? Fine.. well let's go with the compatibility
symlinks then.
Martin.
