Re: What is /usr/dt/lib?
>>>> "H" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
H> Didier Verna <verna(a)inf.enst.fr> writes:
> /usr/dt is still an abomination. We already have directories for
> putting graphics stuff or libraries in. There's no point in putting
> Motif libs in a CDE directory just because CDE needs it. If I just
> want to write a non-cde Motif based application, I shouldn't have to
> deal with a cde directory at all.
H> I still don't understand your problem with /usr/dt/. What does "deal
H> with a CDE directory" mean?
I agree with Hrvoje. Presumably, users running a vendor OS like
Solaris are doing so out of choice (or the choice of their
management), especially today when Linux is actually an option on all
hardware. /usr/dt is as standard a part of Solaris (and AIX, and
HP-UX, and DU, ...) as /usr/bin. I see nothing wrong with detecting
and using it.
Users can always override /usr/dt contents using --site-libraries and
--site-includes. Users are also free to `rm -rf /usr/dt' and XEmacs
will build just fine with just the vendor-supplied X in /usr/openwin.
But most users will choose not to shoot themselves in the foot this way.
Does anyone actually have a real live PROBLEM that removing /usr/dt
would solve? There would certainly be many problems that it would
introduce.
Martin