Free Software audit update

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:45:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 
> >  The headers and the .so 
> > conflict.
> Different installation paths, different rpaths.

I am not sure but it seems to me that different rpaths are not needed, 
since library names are different. I think that putting the .so link
in directories should do the trick, like:

%_libdir/lesstif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.2.0.1
%_libdir/openmotif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.4.0.0


Anyway, I was asking for a simpler solution that using different 
installation paths... Indeed if it is done that way, 
openmotif should also be changed to follow the same
scheme, such that there is a choice between the libraries. And
there will be a need for configure or compilation switches to find the
libraries. Is it worth the trouble?

We need to balance -devel parallel installable (which would indeed be 
nice) against the need to give specific flags when building to choose 
which lib to link against when both are present, and ensure that libs 
are found even if they are not in the default paths.


As a side note, it could also make sense to have the different 
motif api parallel installable for both implementations, but this is 
certainly a fair amount of work for little gains.

--
Pat