Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Guessing package, was: Re: your program / paper

[Alfredo Portes]

> wh-sandbox has implemented a radically different algebra build
> process that avoids many of the problems associated with the
> old "bootstrap" method. It has also implemented some significant
> improvements to the way the Axiom database is built. Therefore
> it is not clear to me if it would be possible to incorporate
> Martin's package in the old Silver release without first
> incorporating most (if not all) of the changes in wh-sandbox.
> Silver is essentially just the old patch-50 from the tla
> archives. You will recall the problems that we had last summer
> trying to get Martin's code built on that system.

Arghh... do not remind me :-).  I spent 3 days without been able to
create a live cd for Martin. But as I recall patch-50 broke something,
because Martin was able to add his package using patch-49.

> One could proceed by backporting all (or most) of the revisions
> from the build-improvements branch and the wh-sandbox sub-
> branch, but that would certainly be a lot of work! I think the
> state of the current /silver branch (almost the same as /trunk)
> on SourceForge is too distant from both build-improvements and
> wh-sandbox branches to continue to serve as the base. It would
> much better just to re-define it as something very close to the
> current wh-sandbox (or build-improvements with wh-sandbox
> backports).

One would think that with so many open source projects out there as
examples and the great minds that read this list, a working
development/release method could be achieved :-). But of course
this probably has been discussed many times on this list.

I just say this because I plan to work heavily on Doyen this summer
and would like to know "which" Axiom should I use.

By the way, what should be done with address@hidden
If we cannot keep it up to date, I think we should remove it, especially
now that the problems with sourceforge look like they have been solved.