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

[Ric]

Sure. doing it...
Bingo. It does  make rpm  AOK.
Will install and use it, too.

Thanks.  :)

It comes to mind that anybody that has been getting CVS for a long time might
still have ltcf-c.sh laying around in the directory and have been,
unknowingly, building xfwm4 with ltcf-c.sh  since the change was made to the
Makefile.in.  I dunno if it matters though....

Also, I have noticed that most of xfce4-extras still have the  ltcf-c.sh  file
and it is in the  Makefile.in , too. ( I just finished CVS co here )  Maybe,
'extras' is supposed to be that way but JIC they are not, here's the info.

via grep:
xfce4-mixer/Makefile.in:186:    config.sub configure configure.ac depcomp
install-sh ltcf-c.sh \
xfcalendar/Makefile:190:        config.sub configure configure.ac depcomp
install-sh ltcf-c.sh \
xfce4-sample-plugin/Makefile.in:160:    configure configure.ac depcomp
install-sh ltcf-c.sh ltma  in.sh \
xfce4-systray/Makefile.in:165:  config.sub configure configure.ac depcomp
install-sh ltcf-c.sh \
xfce4-themes/Makefile.in:121:   config.sub configure configure.ac install-sh
ltcf-c.sh \
xfce4-toys/Makefile.in:187:     config.sub configure configure.ac depcomp
install-sh ltcf-c.sh \
xfce4-trigger-launcher/Makefile.in:178: config.sub configure configure.ac
depcomp install-sh ltcf-c.sh \

It looks like xffm-icons and xfce4-iconbox are the only ones that do not have 
ltcf-c.sh  in the Makefile.in(or in the files).

I have not built them yet but they should make rpm okay(except  xfcalendar 
which does not have *.spec.in file yet, of course).

Thanks again...

--- Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org> wrote:
> Ric,
> 
> Can you try with this one (same link, updated archive):
> 
> http://www.xfce.org/archive/test/xfwm4-cvs.tar.bz2
> 
> I've rerun autogen.sh so Makefile.in has been regenerated with proper
> libtool version.
> 
> (This version implements aspect ratio, fullscreen support for older
> legacy apps, handles missing key theme nicely, etc.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> 
> On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 21:58, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev


=====
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