[Xquartz-dev] Notes on OSX 10.5.5

[Martin Costabel]

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 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.

>> What you will do in the future is a different story. The thing is broken
>> *now* and has been broken for a long time.
> 
> Well, TBH, you were the one who lashed out at the idea of simply punting 
> the .la files in any manner.  

I was not "lashing out". I was simply warning and asking to think about 
what will happen if you do it. This is not a judgment, it is a statement 
of fact. I showed a real-life example, too, that came up immediately 
when you shipped one of the xquartz updates without the *.la files.

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.

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.

-- 
Martin