X11R6 compatibility symlink
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Aug 11 12:08:43 PDT 2007
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/11/07 13:11 CST:
> Let's put the symlink
> in place, however, please put in a block of text explaining that it is a
> stop gap and is a really bad thing to do _to_ the developers of the
> broken packages.
No, we won't put in the book that it is a "really bad thing to do",
and then we have instructions to do it. No way.
> While they do make certain tasks easier,
> compatibility symlinks are generally bad for development. We tend to
> depend on them, and the underlaying problem is not fixed for a very long
> time. If you are a developer and are comfortable with the autotools and
> package-config packages, and would like to help upstream resolve these
> issues properly, you are strongly encouraged to skip this step.
This is the classic "cut off your nose to spite your face". :-)
We shouldn't put in the book some instructions and then tell
folks not to follow them for no other reason than "help upstream
resolve these issues properly". The way to help upstream is to
send in patches that fix the issue. That's how the open-source
world works, right?
Yes, if we decide to do the symlink thing, then we should explain
it is a stopgap until the (many still) upstream packages are fixed.
But I don't think we should be telling folks not to do it. I feel
we should identify each instance, and provide a workaround if we
I am certainly guilty about not helping out on this one. I've made
the symlink in every installation I've done because "it just works".
Seems anything else is just banging your head against the wall.
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 184.108.40.206 i686]
13:59:00 up 9 days, 13:50, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.01
More information about the blfs-dev