Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Need help with R4 Xsun on Sun 3/260 with cgtwo
Message-ID: <43396@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 7 Jan 90 01:09:16 GMT
References: <390@ai.etl.army.mil> <9001062237.AA14264@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 37

| From: keith@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith Packard)
| 
| Every ioctl call in your distribution is not working because the person
| who installed gcc neglected to run fixincludes on the machine you're
| building R4 with.  

  Doing that is annoying.  Some of us strive to avoid modifying the
vendor's stock software.  There are many reasons for this:

    1.	Unbridled hacking obviously leaves one with a totally worthless
	system.  Nothing works in any standard way any more.  That said,
	let's assume we're merely talking about moderate modifications
	to vendor software systems in the following comments.

    2.	Whenever a new version of the vendor software comes out one has
	to hunt up all the special hacks that were made against the last
	version of the vendor software, checking which ones still need to
	be made, etc.

    3.	Often, hacks on the vendor software will have unexpected side-
	effects on other vendor software or even user software.  Quite
	reasonably vendors don't have a lot of sympathy when people
	get themselves into trouble this way.

  All in all, it's obvious that one wants to keep the number of hacks
against vendor stock software to an absolute minimum.  (This, by the way,
is why a lot of people prefer to install X under /usr/local/... rather
than the current defaults.  If you're going to insist on defaults and
leave those defaults accidentally hard coded in various places from time
to time, at least use a more reasonable default like /usr/local/... or
even just test installing it under /usr/local even once ...)

  So my question: why did you set up the server so we can't use
-traditional with gcc??????  I really don't want to screw around with my
vendor software by running gcc's fixincludes script.

Casey