break in libXpm/sxpm

Chuck Robey chuckr at
Fri Jun 6 14:59:50 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Chuck Robey wrote:
> In building libXpm, I get a bunch (maybe 40) missing symbols, so I chose the
> first one (fix it, the rest fall into line, you know?) named XtSetLanguageProc.
> I did a for loop in the installtion dir, only found that symbol in libXt.a.
> Just in case, I also looked in my already existing non-base libdir
> (/usr/local/lib) and only found it in libXt.a also.  Both places it's a text
> symbol.  I looked at the linking line in the make listing, it's not using libXt
> (no -lXt), so, I thought to ask if the world would end if I modified something
> like maybe to cause it to like libXt a bit better?
> I mean, that wouldn't cause me any other downstream problems, would it?

OK, I fixed it by setting SXPM_LIBS.  I don't really know why this was needed,
and my lack of understanding of the autotools prevents me from really fixing it.

(RANT)  Tell you the truth, that's my base reason for really abhorring the
auto-tools, because it makes troubleshooting (I mean, fixing, really) bad builds
1000% more difficult, and I have always felt that making things easy to fix
should have been a far higher priority than what it is now.  Could have had all
the portability fixes without leaving GNU-Make.  Just wouldn't have catered so
directly to folks who have no idea what a compiler is, and I really think that
was a huge mistake.  I'm not personally a genius, but I (like nearly everyone on
this list) know enough to fix problems that are limited to Makefiles; but in
forcing things to be so terribly difficult for most people to repair, you have
basically forced most people into the mode of copying and praying.  What a huge
step forward that is?
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the xorg mailing list