jkh@MEEPMEEP.PCS.COM (Jordan K. Hubbard) (04/10/91)
A flame and a cautionary tale: From the README: > X includes & libs are located, then type make. I had Imakefiles > for these, but they didn't work right, so I switched to makefiles > for now... Arghhhh! No no no! The proper solution would have been to fix the Imakefiles or, at the very least, include them with the distribution so that others will a better grasp of Imakefile construction could have fixed them. As it is, people like myself who must support multiple architectures from the same source tree are out of luck. People: If you're going to distribute something, and have trouble with producing an Imakefile for it, ASK FOR HELP. DO NOT simply punt and send out a Makefile instead! Many of us have taken the Imakefile/config mechanism to its logical extension and can no longer use simple Makefiles without a lot of work - there are simply too many various flags and libraries involved on some machines. Thank you. Jordan
jackm@sparrow.pica.army.MIL (Jack Moskowitz) (04/10/91)
On the other hand, there are those of us with binary distributions of X who can't get imake working. A simple and ordinary makefile is much preferrable in this case. [Running a Masscomp/Concurrent with Xlib and Motif - version numbers don't conform to MIT's but probably X.4.] Jack Moskowitz System Administrator AMCCOM - PA&TD Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. <jackm@qa1.pica.army.mil> > > A flame and a cautionary tale: > > From the README: > > > X includes & libs are located, then type make. I had Imakefiles > > for these, but they didn't work right, so I switched to makefiles > > for now... > > Arghhhh! No no no! The proper solution would have been to fix the > Imakefiles or, at the very least, include them with the distribution > so that others will a better grasp of Imakefile construction could have > fixed them. > > As it is, people like myself who must support multiple architectures > from the same source tree are out of luck. > > People: If you're going to distribute something, and have trouble > with producing an Imakefile for it, ASK FOR HELP. DO NOT simply > punt and send out a Makefile instead! Many of us have taken the > Imakefile/config mechanism to its logical extension and can no > longer use simple Makefiles without a lot of work - there are simply > too many various flags and libraries involved on some machines. > > Thank you. > > Jordan
jackm@sparrow.pica.army.MIL (Jack Moskowitz) (04/11/91)
Give me a break. Don't you think I would bang on the vendor first. The vendor (Concurrent) just says that they don't support it. Not all vendors are created equal. --jack > > In article <9104101151.aa00901@sparrow.pica.army.mil> you write: > >On the other hand, there are those of us with binary > >distributions of X who can't get imake working. A simple > >and ordinary makefile is much preferrable in this case. > > Eh? If imake "doesn't work" (???) then bang on your vendor. > > Are you sure you don't mean "I don't know how to use imake" ...? > > /jordan
totty@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Brian Totty) (04/11/91)
The Free Widget stuff will include Imakefiles in the future. Even imake has functionality problems for people who have X located in non-standard places, and with various architectures. So far, few people have complained about the lack of imakefiles, and are glad that some people are trying to make their lives a bit easier by collecting widgets together. I will try to get an imake-able version as soon as possible, but can make no promises as to how soon. / Brian Totty o o /__ __ o 1304 W. Springfield Avenue o / / / / Urbana, IL 61801 \_/ "We have corn in /__/ / / totty@cs.uiuc.edu Massachusetts too!"