On Sep 19, 2008, at 02:59, Martin Costabel wrote:
Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Sep 18, 2008, at 01:02, Martin Costabel wrote:
[]
Or make at least the *latest released* versions of both camps compatible with each other. Right now, the symlinks shipped with 10.5.2 to 10.5.5 are incompatible with *both* xcode-3.0 (libXrandr) and xcode-3.1/3.1.1 (libXdamage and some others).
As I've mentioned before, the release schedule for 3.1.1 was too far along by the time we were made aware of this issue. Furthemore, I've continued to assert that this is being addressed in Xcode 3.1.2 in the manner we discussed on this list about 2 months ago.
OK, so when 3.1 came out, 3.1.1 was already too advanced
More correctly, by the time we came up with a solution, it was too advanced. Remember, you were the one who was vehemently opposed to us no-longer shipping the .la files, so I spent some time trying to find an alternative. After coming to the conclusion that there is no alternative, it was too late for 3.1.1
and, of course, 10.5.3 and 10.5.4 and 10.5.5 were not to be bothered by compatibility issues with an SDK.pkg. I see.
Right, there's nothing wrong that an OS update can fix. The broken files are in X11SDK which ships independent of the OS.
The fact is that once X11 dumps its *.la files, one will have to rebuild every package that has been built against the old X11 with *.la files, and all of them from scratch, because if only one dependency has an *.la file that was built against the old X11, the whole rebuild procedure will crash.
or you could just do 'rm /sw/lib/*.la' and be done with it.
What I *was* "lashing out" against is the continuing de facto refusal to apply trivial and inoffensive bug fixes and the wasted opportunities for doing so in a timely manner.
Well, that certainly is an opinion. However, the discussion here certainly supports arguments to the contrary regarding the triviality of said changes, and said changes are being integrated into the first available update that can take them.