[Gambas-user] BUG in 0.99 RC1

[Ron Onstenk]

On Monday 01 November 2004 14:22, Benoit Minisini wrote:

--8<--------

> >
> > Ron
> >
> 
> Here is what I fixed, tell me if it is correct:
> 
> 1) I put /usr/local before /usr in every "include search" GB_FIND() 
> 
I think yes, the curl component had it and I could solve the problem by
that way with the --prefix for the version needed.
SuSE also did not like the xml was updated other then they provide.
The same kind of problems was solved the same way.
Your change tells me that my suggestion makes sense. 
You are the professional compared to me. :=)

> 2) I added /usr/local/lib and /usr/lib in every "include search" GB_FIND().
> 
> Normally, include files should never be put in a lib directory, but there are 
> exceptions (like qt on Mandrake).
> 
Mandrake is not the only one, SuSE 8.2 also.

It make sense to me the /usr/lib and /usr/include are world wide for the distro the same.
This way they know it is working if they distribute the precompiled binaries.

For the system admin there is a local situation and different for every 
box but same disto. That makes sense for existing of the /usr/local.
A kind of basic path i.e. as /bin, /lib, /etc, /tmp, /var is repeated in /usr, 
and also in /usr/local. 

It sound logic to me if the system admin wants or need a higher version for libraries
they can have the place in /usr/local/lib and the includes in /usr/local/includes.
This way they will not conflict with the precompiled programs for the distro.

What QT is doing on mandrake is the same on SuSE. it is installed in /usr/lib/qt3.
In a case I did try to compile a program it was looking for /usr/lib/qt so I made
a symlink, I found also requests for /usr/lib/qt-3.1 once. 
I think this is dependend on the distributor compiling QT for for distro.

QT however seems to use the /usr/lib/qt3 as base for there own root and I 
see the basic directory tree of /bin, /etc, /lib, /include here to for SuSE.
/usr/lib/qt3/bin, /usr/lib/qt3/etc, /usr/lib/qt3/include and /usr/lib/qt3/lib

> I think distribution makers never solved the problem of installing different 
> development packages of the same library...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Benoit

Me was told in the past that it was just the _power_ of linux it's able to do it. 
The programs could use different ones opposite of the windows system dll's.
The reason of the existenc of mylib.so.6, mylib.so.6.1, mylib.so.6.2 and mylib.so.5.3
It is the programmer that can say it wants the 6.1 version, but never does.

Greets Ron

p.s. I have 20 untranslated entries of the 579 (96% done) ATM.
Fabrice will proofreading of it but has no time to do the job anymore.
He will also look in the Dutch KDE i18n group for check assistance for me.