[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnucap-devel] New gnucap development snapshot
From: |
al davis |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnucap-devel] New gnucap development snapshot |
Date: |
Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:44:16 -0400 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.3 |
On Sunday 09 July 2006 17:47, Dan McMahill wrote:
> al davis wrote:
> > There is a new development snapshot of gnucap available.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can get it at:
> > Official site:
> > http://www.gnucap.org/devel/gnucap-2006-07-08.tar.gz
> > Mirrors:
> > http://www.geda.seul.org/dist/gnucap-2006-07-08.tar.gz
>
> cool. I was updating the NetBSD package and ran into 3 minor
> things that I'm somewhat puzzled by.
>
> Did you do anything to the tar file after running 'make
> dist'?
This is a transitional release. The tar file was actually made
by the old system. The new system didn't work correctly, and
rather than taking the time to troubleshoot, I fell back to the
old.
Actually, I spent quite a bit of time troubleshooting in
general. I don't yet fully understand what the issues are.
> I'm asking because the man/gnucap-man.dvi file
> doesn't seem to be in the tar file but as near as I can tell
> from man/Makefile.am, it should be.
It wasn't in the old dist file. I consider it to
be "non-source" and those who don't have TeX installed can't
use it anyway. It is an intermediate file.
> The result is 'make
> install' fails if I don't have latex installed (the build
> system is set up to use latex if found but otherwise issue
> warnings and use the .dvi file which ships in the .tar.gz).
Maybe that explains some of the behavior I was seeing. The
system I use mostly las latex installed.
> The second question is if your intention is to not have the
> html manual installed with 'make install'. By commenting out
> the SUBDIRS= html line in man/Makefile.am, the html manual
> doesn't get installed. Whats wierd is by commenting that
> out, the html manual shouldn't have even ended up in the
> .tar.gz file yet I see it there.
As I said, the tar.gz file was made the old way, which does
include the html manual. Even though it is non-source, for
many users, it is a preferred way to view the docs. Both html
and pdf are provided, so you can read the manual right away
without building anything. Should this be changed? I wonder,
because both of these are non-source.
> My last question is really an observation that
> test/==/Makefile.in seems to have been generated by a really
> old automake (1.4) while all the others are from a modern
> (1.9.6) automake. I'm not sure how this one got singled out.
So that explains it ......
That whole directory is generated. Same goes for man/html. So,
when tinkering, I might remove it then rebuild. The rebuild
didn't put in Makefile.am, so Makefile.in wasn't there either,
so I put it in manually.
> I can try to investigate all of these but don't want to spend
> time on it if the .tar.gz file was modified after creation
> with 'make dist' or (better yet) 'make distcheck'.
As I said, I used the old script.
When I make a major change, I try to make sure the new way is
fully functional before removing the old one. This means that
there is usually a time when both systems are there, and both
being maintained.
Sometimes, I can make the transition in one snapshot.
Sometimes, it may even span major releases. Look
at "named-nodes" as an example of one that took much longer
than it should have. There was at least one snapshot where I
didn't even tell anyone it was there, until somebody tried it.
For a while, both were there, and it defaulted to numbers. For
a while, both were there, and it defaulted to names. Then the
numbers went out and they are always named. For the
transitional versions, it wasn't fully working.
I have a lot to say about this snapshot. Mostly it is about the
new time step control. Prepare for some reading!