xfwm4 version to try [WAS Re: xfce4-session crash]

[Olivier Fourdan]

Ric,

Don't look any further, I think I know...

WebCVS on sf.net shows that benny committed a fix for -lXext on Solaris
and that changed Makefile.in (because benny is probably using
multi-language version of libtool 1.4...)

Benny, I thought we said we were standardizing on libtool 1.5, more
precisely the one I hacked for MacOS-X.

Cheers,
Olivier.

On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 22:30, Ric wrote:
> --- Jasper Huijsmans <jasper at moongroup.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
> > Ric <fhj52ads at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org> wrote:
> > > > Ric,
> > > > 
> > > > ltcf-c.sh was part of the multi-language-branch of libtool 1.4 that
> > > > we were using previously, we use libtool 1.5 now. There is no need
> > > > for"ltcf-c.sh" anywore.
> > > 
> > > Oh, ok, then I guess that means the change to add it into the Makefile
> > > should be reverted since, more precisely, the problem is that the 
> > > Makefile.in specifies the ltcf-c.sh file but that file does not exist
> > > (anymore) & is not needed for xfwm4 build.  
> > > And, of course, whatever caused it to be put into the  makefile  after
> > > the ltcf-c.sh was removed from xfwm4 CVS and tarbz needs to be shot so
> > > that it cannot do it again. :)
> > > 
> > 
> > I have a feeling your distribution added something to the %configure
> > commands for rpm that make it run libtoolize. You did say it worked when
> > you install manually, didn't you?
> 
> If I remove the ltcf-c.sh from the DIST_COMMON  in the Makefile.in,  ' make
> rpm ' will work properly; if I add the ltcf-c.sh into the tarbz2 or to CVS, it
> will work also(without changing the Makefile.in).
> Oh, and all the other XFce4 cvs items that do not have the file  ltcf-c.sh 
> also do not have it spec'd in the  Makefile.in  so they just work...
> 
> AFAIK, Mandrake does not run libtoolize because they, this system, still uses
> libtool 1.4.x.
> Most often they change spec files to define libtoolize as  /bin/true  so that
> 'libtoolize' does nothing.  However that is done on a per spec/per program
> basis - it is not in the rpmrc to define it that way.  Maybe it should be...
> 
> Are you also saying that the DIST_COMMON= items in the  Makefile.in  do not
> need to match what are supplied with the program?   That's not what I
> understand from what I have read, _but_ I have not used auto* . (in ~2years,
> and, really, not then either so you guys could tell me it makes breakfast,
> too, and I would have to 'info' it... :)
> 
> 
> =====
> Have A Great Day!
> 
> Ric
> ***
> Thought for today:
> Software is like sex: it's better when it's free.
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
-- 
Olivier Fourdan - fourdan at xfce.org
   
   Interoperability is the keyword, uniformity is a dead end. 
   http://www.xfce.org