may it be considered to drop the toolkit name from
binary name, i.e. have xdvi.bin instead of
xdvi-motif.bin or xdvi-xaw.bin? that way the names of
xdvi binaries will be the same across unix builds.
The main reasons for having the toolkits included in the binary
name were:
- makes it easier to have the two toolkit versions coexist
on one
installation (also makes development/testing easier)
- makes it possible to have different sets of X defaults for
different toolkit versions
- makes it more obvious which toolkit was used e.g. in
bug reports when people forget to add output of -version
- there are potentially more than 2 toolkits, even if they're
exotic/obsolete (xaw3d, neXtaw etc.)
In my view, these reasons still outweight the possible problems
caused by different names (at least I don't see any real
problems
there, but maybe you do?)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=177175
The main reasons for having the toolkits included in the binary
name were:
- makes it easier to have the two toolkit versions coexist
on one
installation (also makes development/testing easier)
- makes it possible to have different sets of X defaults for
different toolkit versions
- makes it more obvious which toolkit was used e.g. in
bug reports when people forget to add output of -version
- there are potentially more than 2 toolkits, even if they're
exotic/obsolete (xaw3d, neXtaw etc.)
In my view, these reasons still outweight the possible problems
caused by different names (at least I don't see any real
problems
there, but maybe you do?)