[gs-bugs] [Bug 689631] 'make' fails even though 'configure' is OK

[bugs.ghostscript.com-bugzilla-daemon at ghostscript.com]

http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689631





------- Additional Comments From sergstesh at yahoo.com  2008-01-06 19:23 -------
Regarding

"
GNU libc (on every linux box) provides the same functionality as libiconv 
(which is rarely, if at all, available on any linux box). You already found 
that libiconv's header conflicts with glibc's. libiconv is *not* available 
on most linux box for this reason.
...
".

Enough said to demonstrate the difference in opinion and philosophy.

You believe that things work and that user should suffer from vendor lock-in.

Yes, even with Linux there is vendor lock-in - new packages are available
with new distro versions, and as I have many times seen, often new versions
of the same distro are worse stability-wise than old ones

So, if you accept the reality the way I see, and if you believe in freedom,
the "GNU libc (on every linux box) provides the same functionality as libiconv"
is non-starter - because the linux distro packagers could have included
a buggy version of in this case 'libiconv' being a part of GNU libc.

My comments/this bug report is not because I have a special grudge against
GNU libiconv in the framework of 'ghostscript', but because 'ghostscript'
build mechanism deprives me of the freedom to choose 'libiconv' version I want.

If you don't fix this bug - fine.

But, at least, please write in the documentation something like this:

"
Dear end users,

don't even think that we treat all libraries on which 'ghostscript'
depends equally and that using standard 'configure' means you, the end user,
will be able to specify your own version on the libraries.

For reasons we are not going to disclose we, 'ghostscript' developers,
decided to deprive you of the freedom to choose GNU 'libiconv' and you are
stuck with system version.
".

Had I seen such lines in the documentation, I wouldn't have filed the bug.

Thanks in advance.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.