emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#27568: closed (Bigloo update)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#27568: closed (Bigloo update)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:52:01 +0000

Your message dated Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:51:20 -0400
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#27568] Bigloo update
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #27568,
regarding Bigloo update
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
27568: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27568
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Bigloo update Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:36:33 -0400 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
These two packages should be updated at the same time, as the old hop
won't build with the new bigloo.

I'd feel better if a bigloo and hop user verified that everything still
works as it should.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#27568] Bigloo update Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:51:20 -0400 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hello gentlefolks,
>
> Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Kei,
>>>
>>> On 03/07/17 21:36, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>>>> These two packages should be updated at the same time, as the old hop
>>>> won't build with the new bigloo.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd feel better if a bigloo and hop user verified that everything still
>>>> works as it should.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I can't help you with that, but I can always ask annoying
>>> questions: why the update to a release candidate?
>>>
>>
>> Mainly because the existing (stable?) hop wasn't building correctly and
>> had mysteriously absent make targets.
>>
>>> The web site[1] left me more confused than I entered. The ‘file you
>>> should download if you want to build the Hop stable [sic] version from
>>> the sources’ is the even less stable-looking hop-3.1.0-pre1.tar.gz...
>>>
>>
>> The same thing happened to me! I noticed that hop version 3.1.x only
>> existed in the developer's git repository on GitHub[2], so I just got
>> the latest available source tarball from the FTP server.
>
> Hop 3.x has been in the works for a couple of years but I think they
> never put out a proper release.
>
> So I think it’s OK to upgrade to this “RC”.  (Even though I preferred
> 2.5 since 3.x is actually a JavaScript implementation…)
>
> As for testing, I’d say that if the tests pass, that’s OK.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Ludo’.

Thanks to both of you for the review. Changes pushed as
5e3ea571c5ac10858b2a1d6d3dc94a26408ae601 and
082725b5027a3782f242b634f94b9049d4c7f309!

P.S. The most recent Hop version is 3.1.0-pre2 as of today and the older
RC was removed from the FTP server. I updated the package definition
accordingly.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]