dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (02/25/90)
I had problems with xfig 2.0, and was told that /usr/include/X11 should
have links to the files in X11/Xaw. I looked, and this is a
configuration option that we didn't turn on.
Are people generally using and expecting these links, or should we be
pushing to get these things changed?
Also, I think this has been asked before, but is there a compile-time
way for a general program to know which scheme will work? That is, a
define for "new" vs. "old" include style?
--
David Elliott
dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
(408)944-4073
"...it becomes natural, like a third sense." -- Homer Simpsonconverse@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Donna Converse) (02/27/90)
> I had problems with xfig 2.0, and was told that /usr/include/X11 should > have links to the files in X11/Xaw. I looked, and this is a > configuration option that we didn't turn on. > > Are people generally using and expecting these links, or should we be > pushing to get these things changed? The Athena widget set include files were placed in a directory separate from the Xt Intrinsics in order to emphasize the distinction between them, and to avoid naming collisions and to distinguish between the Athena widget set and other widget sets. Code written to R3 and prior expects the links to exist, but code written now should not expect these links to exist. The older code should be changed as part of its maintenance. This is important: in future releases of the Athena widget set, it cannot be assumed that the same support for backward compatibility will be present. For a guide to the changes needed, see doc/Xaw/ConvertToR4. > Also, I think this has been asked before, but is there a compile-time > way for a general program to know which scheme will work? That is, a > define for "new" vs. "old" include style? No, not in the Athena widget set; but see section 13.1 of the R4 Xt doc. Donna Converse converse@expo.lcs.mit.edu