On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:22:24PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There should probably be separate checks for libX11, libSM, libICE, > > libXt, and so forth. > > If the checks should be broken up into checks for individual > libraries that way, then is there any reason to have special > Autoconf macros at all? In other words, should the packages > simply use AC_CHECK_LIB and/or AC_SEARCH_LIBS for each of libX11, > libSM, libICE, etc. that it needs?
Probably; that sounds like the right direction for things to head. > You could do this with Autoconf already, simply by ignoring the > current AC_PATH_X* macros. I could see that there's the possible > extra need for a macro to add /usr/X11R6/lib or whatever to the > library search path. Yes; there's still a need for something like AC_PATH_X_LIBS and AC_PATH_X_INCLUDES. > I don't know X well. Is the above suggestion reasonable or > totally off-base? It sounds utterly reasonable to me. Is there anyone watching this conversation who'd like to help make this happen? I'm happy to use xrender as a guinea pig and proof-of-concept. I feel it's important to get this resolved in time for the sarge release. -- G. Branden Robinson | You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux | you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] | brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Adam Thornton
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
