[M3devel] libXaw.so.6 again

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
OK, thanks for the message, I meant what I think is the case for say Ubuntu 8.04 Dapper LTS (Long time support), have libXaw6 and libXaw7 packages in .deb.
I don't think that you need to relink the all package (or worse than that rebuild to link .so.7) but just use your OS for that (because we will loose support for other OSes that don't have literally have such version).
And to make a smarter solution I would use LONG (adress) arithmetic to relink same executable for two kind of "different" architectures. You think isn't the same, but I think they are but one is just an extension of the other so why not support that as well.
Then why would you need to test I386, and AMD64 versions (then the question is the name of that target x86-32AMD64), but just the same executable and the same thing (again, use your OS for that, don't change your build conf).
Certainly this are configuration management issues, that the software engineer shouldn't care, should you?
Thanks in advance


--- El dom, 13/5/12, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

> De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] libXaw.so.6 again
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: domingo, 13 de mayo, 2012 21:52
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 07:06:44PM
> +0100, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> > Hi all:
> > I think the packages in deb already do that so.6, so.7
> thing for that 
> > purposes, you don't need to that for yourself, I
> believe.
> 
> Whatever do you mean?  It wants libXaw.so.6, which no
> longer exists and 
> has been replaced by libXaw.so.7.  Whatever "that so.6,
> so.7 thing" is 
> that the packages in deb already do, the modula 2 in the
> debian package 
> I downloaded just now from the Modula 3 website insists that
> my 
> executable needs libXaw.so.6, not the one I have available.
> 
> Maybe if the .deb were recompiled and repackaged from source
> it would 
> find libXaw.so.7, but the one now available does not.
> 
> -- hendrik
> 
> > Likewise, would be nicer if we could just relink a
> single executable 
> > for both kind of systems, both 32-bit and 64-bit, if
> there were 32-bit 
> > INTEGER and ADDRESS and 128-bit LONGINT and LONGADDRESS
> and 128-bit 
> > LONGCARD I think it could make a better precision
> arithmetic or 
> > double-length at less.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the question.
> 
> -- hendrik
>