[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new image library "requirements"

From: Jan Djärv
Subject: Re: new image library "requirements"
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:50:04 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070604)

Eli Zaretskii skrev:
From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:26:00 -0400

An error message is the right thing when a crucial feature
that ought to work would fail due to missing headers.

How is the case of image libraries different from the X headers and
libraries?  Currently, if X headers and/or libraries were not found
by the configure script, we just print this in the summary at the end
of configure, and continue as if --without-x was specified.  Are you
saying that X support is less crucial than image support?

X development libraries are required before we even look for these image libraries. There is no such thing as image support without X, except for W32 and OSX, and those platforms don't use the image libraries we check for.

As stated earlier, it is probably a mistake to compile for X without image support. Also, as has been said before, it is hard to look for X support if the development libraries for X is missing, even if we use the heuristic posted by David Kastrup. Crosscompiling is one problem.

        Jan D.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]