Re: Here's an RPM fix!

["Gene C." <genec mindspring com>]

At 04:52 PM 5/31/98 -0400, Gleef wrote:
>
>On Sun, 31 May 1998, Gene C. wrote:
>> I agree that this conflict between the stable/production and development
>> versions of gtk+ is a problem and certainly has caused me to spend time
>> "fixing" things that could be spent more productively elsewhere but I think
>> you may have the "wrond end" of the problem.  Your fix is something that
>> you or I or others can do themselves.  However, a better fix is for the
>> gtk+/gnome developers (I hope you are listening) to change the name of the
>> the gtk+ rpm that is needed by gnome (perhaps to something like gtk+-DEV or
>> gtk+-gnome or gnome-gtk+.
>
>The GTK developers are not responsible for the RPMs, they release
>tarballs.  The gtk+-1.0.2 package I got from the RedHat contrib directory
>was following standard RPM naming conventions.  The gtk+ packages
>autobuilt to the RedHat Labs site were named just fine, until the switch
>to 1.1.  At that point one may argue that they should have switched the
>name.
>

The "developers" I am referring to are those probably those at RedHat Labs
who are working on Gnome (or perhaps the person who setup the "automated"
system).  My point is that they should have switched names then (I can say
that with hindsight :)

> 
>> While there is still a conflict with the development libraries/header
>> files, at least the regular shared libs can coexist with the above change
>> (or your fix).
>
>It's very dangerous to have two sets of header files.  If you do
>development, do it for just one version of the library, or you are asking
>for trouble.  With my package installed, there is no conflict with the
>libraries (I included that block in the post to show the most likely
>error message that someone rushing through the installation is to find,
>and the fix for it immediately after in general, I find that makes for
>many fewer complaints in such cases).
>

You are right of course.  However, I noticed that one of the libraries
which the kde folks distribute conflicts with one of gnome's.  They require
a separate LD_LIBARY statement to run kde (which can be set only when
running kde).  It took me a while to figure out this conflict but at least
it was easy to "fix" once I realized what was the problem.

>
>> It is too bad that the developers did not consider that their versions of
>> libraries and other files might have to coexist with "production" versions
>> and put all of the gnome code into some other directory structure and use
>> additional PATH and LD_LIBRARY variables.  At some point it may still be
>> desirable to do this when even developers would like to be able to run both
>> a "production" version and a "test" version on the same system without
>> rebooting to a different system (which is what I now do).
>
>As far as I know it was no developer that decided.  It was an automated
>script that noticed the version was newer, and updated the name
>accordingly.  It was left unchanged due to either a) inertia, b) desire to
>keep from confusing people with changes or c) lack of knowledge that it
>was a problem with some people.
>
>Remember, the GTK developers aren't touching our RPMs, and the most
>hardcore GNOME developers are working exclusively out of CVS, and seldom
>look at the RPMs.
>
>The best solution in my mind would be to for someone to change the name of
>the gtk rpms to something that won't conflict.  If there is a problem with
>doing that, or nobody wants to, my RPM is available to help people avoid
>conficts, and to keep all the RPM dependency checking features working
>properly.
>
>-Gleef
>

I DO NOT consider this a gtk problem!  It is more of a gnome (or perhaps
just a RedHat) problem.  Right now, I have somehow gotten "co-existance" to
work and I will likely do something similar to what you did for the "next"
release of gtk+ 1.0.n (whenever that occurs).  However, I do wonder how/if
RedHat will resolve the situation now that they have a version of gnome
(based on gtk+ 1.0.2) distributed in RHL 5.1.

Gene


>
>-- 
>         To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>
>