Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1114
Base Installation doesn't <seem to> fit everyones needs.
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:49 EDT
This is a e-mail I received as a receipient of the wine
developers e-mail list. It shows <perhaps> a enhancement
that could be made to RedHat to make it more developer
friendly, directly. Read the whole e-mail before you
dismiss it as venting.
Systems Software Engineer
Green Hills Software, Inc
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
This had the strange effect for me that after the configure
for the X11/xpm.h header that was recently added, configure
that I didnt have Xpm installed, and Wine was compiled
(Before that check was added, everything was working fine,
the compiler finds Xpm ...)
Agh, all the problems RedHat have caused. autoconf should
have a RedHat test and warn users that they should get
Debian or something instead.
Hm? You want to know what I mean? Okay. RedHat separates
the libraries and the headers into separate packages (the
headers go into a devel package). So these lusers install
the libraries but dont think of themselves as developers
and forget to install the associated devel package. What
happens next is that autoconf finds the library, but then
the compilation fails because the headers arent there. So
Wine had to add these header checks too, something for
which autoconf wasnt designed, with the result you just
OK, now people wonder, Debian separates the libraries and
headers into separate packages too, so wouldnt Debian have
the same problem?
$ cd /usr/X11R6/lib
$ ls -l libXpm*
 rw-rr-- 1 root root 78832 Jan 25 1998
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Nov 17 16:52
libXpm.so -> libXpm.so.4.10
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Nov 17 16:52
libXpm.so.4 -> libXpm.so.4.10
 rw-rr-- 1 root root 53408 Jan 25 1998
$ dpkg -S libXpm.so
The main symlink required for linking is in the dev
package. So if the dev package isnt installed, libXpm.so
wouldnt be detected. Thus these header checks wouldnt be
necessary for Debian, and wouldnt have these problems.
RedHat is pretty braindead, IMHO.
- configure should be fixed to include the -I header for
include directory with the X11 header checks (unfortunately
not very familiar with autoconf/configure; maybe one of the
gurus can fix this?)
- compiling Wine without Xpm is rather pointless in the
Shouldnt we either completely abort compilation of Wine if
not present, or else implement some workaround so that Wine
least start up ?
Will this work? (the offset you may get when you apply is
because I cut out the stuff that enables my memory
This is how autoconf macros do it to mess with LIBS, so
thought I could use it for CFLAGS too.
ChangeLog (if accepted):
Fixed X library header file detection.
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.28 configure.in
--- wine/configure.in 1999/02/05 17:40:47 1.28
+++ wine/configure.in 1999/02/11 04:11:06
@@ -97,6 +103,8 @@
if test $have_x = yes
 CFLAGS=$CFLAGS $X_CFLAGS
dnl Check for -lXpm
@@ -130,6 +138,8 @@
(HAVE_LIBMESAGL) X_PRE_LIBS=$X_PRE_LIBS -lMesaGL,,$X_LIBS
-lXext -lX11 -lm)
@@ -666,6 +676,12 @@
echo *** X support, which currently does not work, and
would probably not be echo *** what you want anyway. You
will need to install devel packages of echo ***
Xlib/Xfree86 and Xpm at the very least.
+elif test $ac_cv_lib_Xpm_XpmCreatePixmapFromData = no
 echo *** Warning: Xpm development files not found. Wine
will be built without
 echo *** Xpm support, which currently does not work. You
will need to install
 echo *** devel packages of Xpm.
if test $ac_cv_lib_ncurses_resizeterm = no -a
$ac_cv_lib_ncurses_waddch = yes
The gist of this report seems to be a suggestion that putting
the foo.so link of a shared library (in this case libXpm.so)
into the foo-devel package would permit more efficient testing
of the existence of libraries within autoconf.
This is typically the way rpm's containing shared libraries are
packaged by Red Hat. In particular
bash$ rpm -qf /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so