Re: [build] is libxtst-dev a recently added requirement

[Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>]

On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran
> into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part
> of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build
> pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating
> it. Once I installed that package it built.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying
on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally
only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known
good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6).  It may be
necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if*
someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible
and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned
libraries.

Regards,
 Mark.

Re: [build] is libxtst-dev a recently added requirement

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

Mark Hindess wrote:
> On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran
>> into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part
>> of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build
>> pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating
>> it. Once I installed that package it built.
> 
> I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying
> on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally
> only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known
> good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6).  It may be
> necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if*
> someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible
> and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned
> libraries.

Yeah, we ended up doing that here [1] by attempting the load of a known 
version (LOAD_LIB_VER macro) and if that fails falling back to 
unversioned library (LOAD_LIB).

[1] 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/awt/src/main/native/x11wrapper/unix/org_apache_harmony_awt_nativebridge_linux_X11.cpp?view=markup

Regards,
Tim

Re: [build] is libxtst-dev a recently added requirement

[Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>]

On 10 February 2008 at 20:43, "Nathan Beyer" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah, I recall that, but for building, we'd still need the dev
> packages, correct? Or, would the build work with the libxtst6 package?

Generally, yes, you would need the dev package for building although
some code has hard coded prototypes I think.  I have no objections to
this.

I do think relying on dev packages at runtime is a very bad idea.  We
test with specific versions we should load them and *only* them.

That said, the compromise of loading version specific then unversioned
if that fails is better than what we have today so I'd be happy with
that for now.

-Mark.

> On Feb 10, 2008 2:39 PM, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran
> > > into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part
> > > of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build
> > > pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating
> > > it. Once I installed that package it built.
> >
> > I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying
> > on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally
> > only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known
> > good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6).  It may be
> > necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if*
> > someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible
> > and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned
> > libraries.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Mark.
> >
> >
> >
> 

Re: [build] is libxtst-dev a recently added requirement

[Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>]

Yeah, I recall that, but for building, we'd still need the dev
packages, correct? Or, would the build work with the libxtst6 package?

-Nathan

On Feb 10, 2008 2:39 PM, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10 February 2008 at 0:12, "Nathan Beyer" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm trying to run a build on a fresh Linux (Ubuntu) box and ran
> > into an error about not finding "-lXtst". This seems to be a part
> > of the libxtst-dev package, but that's not listed on the build
> > pre-requisites, at least not yet. I wanted to check before updating
> > it. Once I installed that package it built.
>
> I'm sure we've had this discussion before but ... rather than relying
> on unversioned .so files (such as libXtst.so) which are generally
> only found in developer packages, we should be loading/linking known
> good-versioned runtime libraries (such as libXtst.so.6).  It may be
> necessary to attempt to load more than one - such as libXtst.so.5 *if*
> someone has tested that this works - but that would be acceptible
> and more reliable than the current pot-luck loading of unversioned
> libraries.
>
> Regards,
>  Mark.
>
>
>