Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ora!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: jackm@sparrow.pica.army.MIL (Jack Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Free Widget Set's missing Imakefile braindamage.
Message-ID: <9104101151.aa00901@sparrow.pica.army.mil>
Date: 10 Apr 91 15:51:19 GMT
References: <m0jQeCy-0003NBC@meepmeep.pcs.com>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 40

On the  other  hand,  there  are those  of  us  with  binary
distributions of X who  can't get imake  working.  A  simple
and ordinary makefile is much preferrable in this case.

[Running a Masscomp/Concurrent with Xlib and Motif - version
numbers don't conform to MIT's but probably X.4.]

Jack Moskowitz
System Administrator
AMCCOM - PA&TD
Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.
<jackm@qa1.pica.army.mil>

> 
> A flame and a cautionary tale:
> 
> From the README:
> 
> >       X includes & libs are located, then type make.  I had Imakefiles
> >       for these, but they didn't work right, so I switched to makefiles
> >       for now...
> 
> Arghhhh! No no no! The proper solution would have been to fix the
> Imakefiles or, at the very least, include them with the distribution
> so that others will a better grasp of Imakefile construction could have
> fixed them.
> 
> As it is, people like myself who must support multiple architectures
> from the same source tree are out of luck.
> 
> People: If you're going to distribute something, and have trouble
> with producing an Imakefile for it, ASK FOR HELP. DO NOT simply
> punt and send out a Makefile instead! Many of us have taken the
> Imakefile/config mechanism to its logical extension and can no
> longer use simple Makefiles without a lot of work - there are simply
> too many various flags and libraries involved on some machines.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 					Jordan