On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:45:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:19 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > The headers and the .so > > conflict. > Different installation paths, different rpaths. I am not sure but it seems to me that different rpaths are not needed, since library names are different. I think that putting the .so link in directories should do the trick, like: %_libdir/lesstif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.2.0.1 %_libdir/openmotif/libXm.so -> ../libXm.so.4.0.0 Anyway, I was asking for a simpler solution that using different installation paths... Indeed if it is done that way, openmotif should also be changed to follow the same scheme, such that there is a choice between the libraries. And there will be a need for configure or compilation switches to find the libraries. Is it worth the trouble? We need to balance -devel parallel installable (which would indeed be nice) against the need to give specific flags when building to choose which lib to link against when both are present, and ensure that libs are found even if they are not in the default paths. As a side note, it could also make sense to have the different motif api parallel installable for both implementations, but this is certainly a fair amount of work for little gains. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
