Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!icsib12!stolcke
From: stolcke@icsib12.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas Stolcke)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: R5 Wish List (Imake to the bitbucket)
Message-ID: <26304@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 18 Jul 90 07:14:42 GMT
References: <2767@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> <675@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: stolcke@icsi.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas Stolcke)
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 23
X-Local-Date: 18 Jul 90 00:14:42 PDT

In article <675@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) writes:
>dependence upon the X source hierarchy.  After installation of the mit area
>of X, it should be possible to avoid having to use the MIT source hierarchy
>as part of the Imake process.  I mean, I have set up my symbolic links to
>/usr/bin/X11, etc.  Why do "contrib"uted programs have to rely on the core X
>source tree?

They don't. Once you installed /usr/bin/X11/xmkmf and the stuff in
/usr/lib/X11/config, just type 'xmkmf' and a Makefile will be built
that uses only the installed headers and libs. (In fact, it is annoying
to see all those Imakefiles with INCLUDES = ... around where in most cases
it's completely redundant).

I agree that Imake is a Good Thing.  I'm wondering however why the numerous
bugs in the Imake configuration files in R4 tape (mostly reported in this
newsgroup) have never been fixed by any of the official MIT fixes.  That's
one of the reasons why some people are still having a hard time with Imake,
I believe.

----
Andreas Stolcke
International Computer Science Institute	stolcke@icsi.Berkeley.EDU
1957 Center St., Suite 600, Berkeley, CA 94704	(415) 642-4274 ext. 126