Re: mc port to glib2.0

[Pavel Roskin <proski gnu org>]

Hi!

> > If it's a pain to install old libraries again, then the problem should be
> > reported to glib developers and possibly to libtool developers with all
> > the details.  If the problem is with binary packages, report to the
> > packager first.  glib-1.2 and glib-2.0 are supposed to coexist peacefully.
> 
> ugh..... aehm..... i am not comming from another plannet or something...
> maybe i badly phrased that sentence. the pain is not to 'compile' things
> or install things. its because of the fact that you NEED to install the

Sorry for misunderstanding.  Unfortunately, it's quite often that people
think that something is impossible or broken for everybody when they
encounter a problem.  If you mention a problem, give more details.  If you
don't like something, try to explain why - different people have different
tastes and diferent approaches to package management.

> old library, while the new one provides the same functions. so an option
> in the configure.in or configure file would be of interest that either
> searches for glib 1.2 and if its not found skips forward to search for
> glib 2.0 and if its not found too then reports an error.

That's reasonable.  If somebody has glib 2.0 then pkgconfig is likely to
be installed as well.  But I don't think this logic has been implemented
in any package - it's quite a lot of work and it doesn't work for gtk+ 
due to more radical changes in gtk+ compared to glib.

> > glib 2.0 requires pkgconfig.  It's a C program, so it's another
> > prerequirements to the users who want to compile MC from sources,
> > especially on traditional UNIX systems without any version of pkgconfig
> > and glib.  Alone the requirement for glib causes much pain for UNIX users.
> 
> thanks for underestimating me and my capabilities.. i know howto use
> a compiler and my brain and i am not using linux since yesterday, its
> a couple of years that i use it now.

Unfortunately, it's very typical of me to be misunderstood.  I though you
were running Linux or BSD, not a "traditional UNIX".  Again, a bit more
details about your system could have been useful.

I was referring to something like an old HP-UX box with a dumb pre-ANSI C
compiler and inconvenient shell without history and completion.  You may
be a UNIX genius, but quite a few people could be in trouble.  MC could be
a convenient tool to fix possible compile problems and just find out
what's going on.  But if you have to compile pkgconfig and glib and it
doesn't work, and you haven't used vi for years, this can be very
frustrating.  Not for me and not for you, but good developers should not
write software only for themselves.

> by the way... and as respectfull i want to sound now.... you should
> be a tad more diplomatic to people while answering, this wouldnt waste
> your time in writing the mail and not wasting or hurting the people
> that needs to read them. my previous sentence was easy enought to
> understand.

Perhaps I should have ignored you because you didn't specify your 
operating system :-)

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, by Eric Raymond and Rick Moen:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin