On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:29:55PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 27-Mar-01, 12:09 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide > > > a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or > > > non-free (otherwise) with a dependency on OpenMotif, just like other > > > non-free library using software? > > > > Because I'm not sure there is 100% compatibility between the version of > > OSF/Motif that a package may be coded against, and between the version of > > OpenMotif that we ship. > > > > In other words, I'm not willing yet to yank the rug out from under all > > Motif-linked packages and tell them "make sure it works with OpenMotif > > instead". > > I wasn't clear enough: I meant that packages built against the > OpenMotif need not supply the static version. Packages linked against > OSF/Motif would still need both static and dynamic. I was envisioning > up to 4 different versions of each package: OSF-dynamic, OSF-static, > Open-dynamic, and Open-static, and didn't see much need for the last of > these.
I agree, but that's only if the following hypothetical isn't true. > If it is the case that if the libraries are supposed to be binary > compatible (and some after browsing around openmotif.org, I'm still not > sure), and we'd still have only two: static (presumably either OSF or > Open) and a dynamic (that should work with either) then I completely > agree with your wording. Perhaps we should get the OpenMotif package maintainer's input. Gerd, do you have any suggestions regarding this policy proposal? You can follow its entire history at <http://bugs.debian.org/91261>. -- G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | that comment in there. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
pgp1LpdP7IBk2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
