Subject: Re: Shared object questions.
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: Richard Rauch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/24/1999 12:49:49
> > As I understand it, the two gtk's are BOTH "Gimp ToolKits", but for some
> > I assume that there is a good technical reason for the situation. I am
> > curious what that reason is.
> I believe there were changes in the API for the library between
> versions. gtk i still quite a young project and they were more
> interested in "getting it right" than retaining backwards
In a sense, I can understand that---but if they were still in an
"experimental" stage, it would have been better to keep the API under
wraps (or at least keep the version strictly below 1.00, and discourage
"serious" dependancy on it). Of course, that's just _me_.
> Recently email@example.com updated pkgsrc to move the files for
> gtk-1.0.X and change the programs that referenced it so that both
> old and new programs can coexist.
> If you update your pkgsrc, and then delete the old gtk1.0 and any
> programs needing it you should be able to remake and install both
> old and new at the same time.
Unfortunately, I cannot readily do this. My machine is not on the 'net.
("There is much to be said for not having network access. And very little
of that is printable.")
(Well, I could send Bob Nestor another $5 for a new CD...that's the
closest to a viable alternative that I will have for about 3 more months.)
> > Related, I can't seem to get the Mesa demos to work under v1.3.3 of
> > to keep the pkgsrc CD mounted. Thus [re]installing is generally easier to
> > do from sources than from binaries. This shouldn't make any difference
> > in general, but it may clarify why I am using pkgsrc instead of pkg_add.)
> I don't know about the Mesa demos - I'll try the latest version
> from pkgsrc out on an i386 box here and se if I can replicate your
(nod) Well, it's not too pressing, but if you can see something, I would
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --firstname.lastname@example.org