Re: new image library "requirements"

[David Kastrup]

Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:

> X development libraries are required before we even look for these
> image libraries.  There is no such thing as image support without X,
> except for W32 and OSX, and those platforms don't use the image
> libraries we check for.
>
> As stated earlier, it is probably a mistake to compile for X without
> image support.  Also, as has been said before, it is hard to look for
> X support if the development libraries for X is missing, even if we
> use the heuristic posted by David Kastrup.  Crosscompiling is one
> problem.

People who do crosscompilation are _required_ to have a clue about the
difference of development libraries and system libraries.  No need
pampering for them, even though something more explicit like the
previous Yes/No list might be worthwhile.

The people we have to be concerned with are native compilers, those
that start with a tarball in order to arrive at a working Emacs on
their current system.

-- 
David Kastrup