On Fri, 23 May 2003, Rex Dieter wrote: >> >> You should not have to recompile a single line of code to use the >> >> new XFree86. >> > >> >That may well be in practice, but I've seen several applications >> >require rebuilding, though the only details I recall off-hand >> >were those apps using the X-Video extenstion, namely mplayer and >> >xine. >> >> Those applications only require being rebuilt because the person >> you downloaded them from who originally compiled them, had a >> broken X installation, > >FYI, these were built against RedHat's XFree86 packages. In particular, >xine/mplayer built on a rh8.0 box didn't run (X-video didn't work) on a >rh9 box without rebuilding. Here is a unified diff of the list of shared libraries from Red Hat Linux 8.0 (XFree86-4.2.0-72) and Red Hat Linux 9 (XFree86-4.3.0-2), showing the libraries added/removed or where the version changed. The 2 lists generated with: pts/9 mharris@xxxxxxxx:~$ rpm -qlp XFree86-libs-4.2.0-72.i386.rpm | grep /usr/X11R6/lib/lib pts/9 mharris@xxxxxxxx:~$ rpm -qlp XFree86-libs-4.3.0-2.i386.rpm | grep /usr/X11R6/lib/lib Here is the diff: --- 1.log Fri May 23 18:11:29 2003 +++ 2.log Fri May 23 18:11:40 2003 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6.3 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libOSMesa.so.3 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libOSMesa.so.3.3 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libOSMesa.so.4 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libOSMesa.so.4.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 @@ -12,12 +12,16 @@ /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so.6.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so.7 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so.7.0 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXcursor.so.1 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXcursor.so.1.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6.4 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfont.so.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfont.so.1.4 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.1 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.1.2 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.1.1 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.2 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXft.so.2.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 @@ -28,19 +32,19 @@ /usr/X11R6/lib/libXp.so.6.2 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4.11 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.1 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.1.0 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.2 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.so.2.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1.1 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXrender.so.1.2 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXtst.so.6 /usr/X11R6/lib/libXtst.so.6.1 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXv.so.1 +/usr/X11R6/lib/libXv.so.1.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libdps.so.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libdps.so.1.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libdpstk.so.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libdpstk.so.1.0 /usr/X11R6/lib/libpsres.so.1 /usr/X11R6/lib/libpsres.so.1.0 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libxrx.so.6 -/usr/X11R6/lib/libxrx.so.6.3 The only 2 interesting things to note here, is that: 1) libXv is now a shared library by default in 4.3.0 whereas it was static only in previous releases. 2) We shipped Keith Packard's Xft 1.2 with RHL 8.0, as an add on to replace what XFree86 ships with. Xft1 in XFree86 4.3.0, versioned as 1.1, is probably 1.2 misversioned. Probably when it got integrated, XFree86.org forgot to bump the shared lib version in the config dir. As long as both versions aren't installed, there shouldn't be any problems I don't believe. Any application built against the X from the official RHL 8.0 XFree86 packages (not a homebrew X install), should run without recompilation in RHL 9. If not, then XFree86 4.3.0 indeed has broken something. -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ xfree86-list mailing list xfree86-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/xfree86-list IRC: #xfree86 on irc.redhat.com
