From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-24 13:58:04
|
A new release is due soon, in particular because of the annoying logical-pathname bug in the 1999-07-22 version. Which changes need to be done to the code before the release? I've integrated libiconv and fixed a few related bugs. What patches do you have pending, Sam? When the code freeze is in place, I can start portability testing, and we can also update the translations. I have a few more changes pending (ffcall and readline), but they are too big (i.e. too risky) for now. Bruno |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2000-01-24 17:35:56
|
>>>> In message <200...@ja...> >>>> On the subject of "[clisp-devel] Preparing release" >>>> Sent on Mon Jan 24 09:05:03 EST 2000 >>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: >> >> Which changes need to be done to the code before the release? >> What patches do you have pending, Sam? I started to translate _impnotes.html to docbook/xml. I have no idea how long will it take. I want *all* docs to be in the same format, so all texinfo, dvi &c should be gone from the CVS and the distributions (both source and binary) should include the xms sources together with generated html and ps. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux, (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation. .sigs are like your face - rarely seen by you and uglier than you think |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-24 18:13:59
|
Sam writes: > >> Which changes need to be done to the code before the release? > >> What patches do you have pending, Sam? > > I started to translate _impnotes.html to docbook/xml. Great! For the regexp module doc and readline (rluserman) doc: Do you have an automatic translator from texinfo to docbook, or will you do it by hand? The readline doc is maintained by Chet Ramey. > I have no idea how long will it take. The conversion from impnotes.txt to .html took me two weeks or more. So I propose to go forward with the release, and when you have finished the documentation, we make a second release which changes only the doc to the new format. (This is probably a safe way to not introduce new bugs in the second release.) Bruno |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2000-01-24 21:38:03
|
>>>> In message <200...@ja...> >>>> On the subject of "Re: [clisp-devel] Preparing release" >>>> Sent on Mon Jan 24 13:20:48 EST 2000 >>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: >> Sam writes: >> >> > >> Which changes need to be done to the code before the release? >> > >> What patches do you have pending, Sam? >> > >> > I started to translate _impnotes.html to docbook/xml. >> >> Great! >> >> For the regexp module doc and readline (rluserman) doc: Do you have >> an automatic translator from texinfo to docbook, or will you do it >> by hand? The readline doc is maintained by Chet Ramey. I have no automatic tool, although there should be one. there are so many files in src/readline/doc: clreadline.html hist.texinfo hstech.texinfo hsuser.texinfo manvers.texinfo rlman.texinfo rltech.texinfo rluser.texinfo rluserman.texinfo I find it unfortunate that the *dvi, *info, *ps and generated *html files are in the CVS. I don't think we can hope that all the docs will ever be in the same format since we have no control over the doc format of the outside packages like readline, so we will have to "live with it"... BTW, are we gonna ever drop oldreadline and oldoldreadline? And what came out of the discussion with Chet about Bruno's patches? did he take enough for CLISP to use his libreadline? >> > I have no idea how long will it take. >> >> The conversion from impnotes.txt to .html took me two weeks or more. >> So I propose to go forward with the release, and when you have >> finished the documentation, we make a second release which changes >> only the doc to the new format. (This is probably a safe way to not >> introduce new bugs in the second release.) fine - the second release might also containg the bug fixes :-) so we will end up with the usual 4.1/5.1/6.1 thing. ;-) -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux, (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation. Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-24 22:50:16
|
Sam writes: > BTW, are we gonna ever drop oldreadline and oldoldreadline? Just after the release, I intend to drop the DOS and OS/2 ports. This includes dropping oldreadline and oldoldreadline. It will make possible to generate a better Win32 makefile. > And what came out of the discussion with Chet about Bruno's patches? did > he take enough for CLISP to use his libreadline? In his response (May 1999) he told us that he would take 15 out of the 20 patches. Well, he lied a bit: He rejected 2 or 3 among the 15 without comments. But anyway, the essentials are included, and the diffs are significantly reduced. Only one important patch/feature remains: the blinking time for parenthesis matching is too short in his version. Bruno |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2000-01-24 23:30:16
|
>>>> In message <200...@ja...> >>>> On the subject of "Re: [clisp-devel] Preparing release" >>>> Sent on Mon Jan 24 17:57:09 EST 2000 >>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: >> Sam writes: >> >> > BTW, are we gonna ever drop oldreadline and oldoldreadline? >> >> Just after the release, I intend to drop the DOS and OS/2 >> ports. This includes dropping oldreadline and oldoldreadline. It >> will make possible to generate a better Win32 makefile. clisp is the only CL for dos. I would be sorry if it were gone. OTOH, if you want lisp, you probably already have a better os! I thought os/2 supported win32. was I wrong? does dropping os/2 imply dropping rexx? >> > And what came out of the discussion with Chet about Bruno's patches? did >> > he take enough for CLISP to use his libreadline? >> >> In his response (May 1999) he told us that he would take 15 out of >> the 20 patches. yeah, I remember that. >> Well, he lied a bit: He rejected 2 or 3 among the 15 >> without comments. did you try to remind him? maybe he just forgot? >> But anyway, the essentials are included, and the >> diffs are significantly reduced. great, so can we now use the libreadline that comes with linux? >> Only one important patch/feature remains: the blinking time for >> parenthesis matching is too short in his version. did you contact him about it? -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux, (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation. Why use Windows, when there are Doors? |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-25 12:38:25
|
Sam writes: > clisp is the only CL for dos. I would be sorry if it were gone. But DOS is dead. Microsoft will be publishing the third successor of DOS this year. > I thought os/2 supported win32. was I wrong? OS/2 has a Windows 3.1 emulation, but no Win32 API. > does dropping os/2 imply dropping rexx? I don't think so. Rexx is platform neutral. Bruno |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2000-01-25 16:14:49
|
>>>> In message <200...@ja...> >>>> On the subject of "Re: [clisp-devel] Preparing release" >>>> Sent on Tue Jan 25 07:45:26 EST 2000 >>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: >> Sam writes: >> >> > clisp is the only CL for dos. I would be sorry if it were gone. >> >> But DOS is dead. Microsoft will be publishing the third successor of >> DOS this year. what about linux dosemu and freedos? I do not think that dropping support for a platform is warranted just to get rid of oldreadline. CLISP's portability is a great win, and having clisp/noreadline on dos is much better than having no clisp on dos. does dos support really cost *that* much? we don't have to implement there anything fancy (like sockets, mt &c), but just being able to play with an ANSI CL on dos is very nice. why not drop oldreadline and keep dos and os2 without readline? >> > I thought os/2 supported win32. was I wrong? >> OS/2 has a Windows 3.1 emulation, but no Win32 API. ouch! this is strange. is os/2 dead too? -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux, (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation. Life is like a diaper -- short and loaded. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-25 17:05:06
|
Sam writes: > >> But DOS is dead. Microsoft will be publishing the third successor of > >> DOS this year. > > what about linux dosemu It is a tool to keep closed-source programs running on newer, better hardware. Not needed with clisp since it's open-source. > and freedos? What is this good for? > I do not think that dropping support for a platform is warranted just to > get rid of oldreadline. Not to get rid of oldreadline. But the Win32 support is modeled after the DOS support in many places. Removing the DOS support permits improving the Win32 support. DOS for CLISP always implied 1. that I build the binaries, 2. a working readline library. Without it an interactive program is unusable. I won't build DOS binaries any more. Noone has ever volunteered the 8 hours it takes to build fresh DOS binaries with a DOS gcc. And the readline library cannot be guaranteed to work properly on DOS, because it hasn't been tested for 2 years. Noone will build CLISP on DOS _and_ have the skills to debug readline. Therefore the DOS port is dead, and noone is harmed if I just remove it. > CLISP's portability is a great win, and having > clisp/noreadline on dos is much better than having no clisp on dos. Sure, that's why I intend to keep the old binaries on the FTP server. > we don't have to implement there anything fancy (like sockets, mt &c) Good point. Any program, be it on DOS or elsewhere, needs sockets nowadays. DOS hasn't sockets built-in. > why not drop oldreadline and keep dos and os2 without readline? It's unusable. Try it, and you get crazy after 10 lines of input. > ouch! this is strange. is os/2 dead too? Don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen signs of life from the OS/2 community for a long time. The last EMX update is more than 2 years old. Bruno |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-25 12:39:42
|
Sam writes: > >> Well, he lied a bit: He rejected 2 or 3 among the 15 > >> without comments. > > did you try to remind him? maybe he just forgot? I'll remind him someday. > >> But anyway, the essentials are included, and the > >> diffs are significantly reduced. > > great, so can we now use the libreadline that comes with linux? Not now, but soon. > >> Only one important patch/feature remains: the blinking time for > >> parenthesis matching is too short in his version. > > did you contact him about it? Yes. I asked him to make it user-configurable. Bruno |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2000-01-25 19:46:04
|
>>>> In message <200...@ob...> >>>> On the subject of "Re: [clisp-devel] Preparing release" >>>> Sent on Tue Jan 25 12:12:27 EST 2000 >>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <ha...@il...> writes: >> Sam writes: >> >> > >> But DOS is dead. Microsoft will be publishing the third successor of >> > >> DOS this year. >> > >> > what about linux dosemu >> >> It is a tool to keep closed-source programs running on newer, better >> hardware. Not needed with clisp since it's open-source. I might find myself in front of a 286 :-) >> > and freedos? >> What is this good for? gameplaying under dosemu :-) >> > I do not think that dropping support for a platform is warranted just to >> > get rid of oldreadline. >> > why not drop oldreadline and keep dos and os2 without readline? >> It's unusable. Try it, and you get crazy after 10 lines of input. not really. clisp under emacs does not require readline. I can imagine writing lisp code in an editor, compiling the file with clisp and running it then - none of this requires readline! >> I won't build DOS binaries any more. Noone has ever volunteered the >> 8 hours it takes to build fresh DOS binaries with a DOS gcc. strong point. >> > ouch! this is strange. is os/2 dead too? >> >> Don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen signs of life from the >> OS/2 community for a long time. The last EMX update is more than 2 >> years old. www.os2.org seems to be alive the latest emx on http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d is 1998/12/22 -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux, (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation. Your mouse has moved - WinNT has to be restarted for this to take effect. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-25 20:25:15
|
Sam writes: > I might find myself in front of a 286 :-) Then go back to xlisp, compiled with Turbo C version 1 ! Have fun ! :-) > >> > why not drop oldreadline and keep dos and os2 without readline? > >> It's unusable. Try it, and you get crazy after 10 lines of input. > > not really. > clisp under emacs does not require readline. On DOS you can't have emacs and clisp running simultaneously. DOS is not multitasking. On OS/2 it would be possible, though. > >> > ouch! this is strange. is os/2 dead too? > >> > >> Don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen signs of life from the > >> OS/2 community for a long time. The last EMX update is more than 2 > >> years old. > > www.os2.org seems to be alive > the latest emx on http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d is > 1998/12/22 Oh, I wasn't aware of that one. But it's a step backward, compared to 0.9c, because 0.9d is based on gcc-2.8.1. Now this might be unfair towards the OS/2 community: There is a website for ZX-81 users, http://www.zx81.de/, and another two for Sun-3 users, http://sun3arc.krupp.net/ and http://www.pz.pirmasens.de/zoo/en/index.html . :-) Hmm, but honestly, when you look at http://set.gmd.de/~veit/os2/mailinglist/ they seem to be pretty alive. Maybe someone will want to build OS/2 binaries from 2000's clisp. Bruno |
From: Raymond T. <to...@rt...> - 2000-01-28 18:52:50
|
>>> > ouch! this is strange. is os/2 dead too? >>> >>> Don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen signs of life from the >>> OS/2 community for a long time. The last EMX update is more than 2 >>> years old. Sam> www.os2.org seems to be alive Sam> the latest emx on http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d is Sam> 1998/12/22 As a "long-time" user of OS/2, I think it's dead.[1] I'm pretty sure IBM has said many times there will not be any version of OS/2 after Warp 4 for personal use. IBM's policy is to continue to support it for about 5 years or so, but that's it. I think they'll continue with it for the server business, but you won't get any new releases for personal use. And losing the WIN-OS/2 stuff didn't help either[2]. I finally gave up on OS/2 and loaded Win 98 (gasp!) so I could run some Windows stuff. If there are OS/2 users of clisp, let them speak up now. Ray Footnotes: [1] That's a shame too. I really liked it. [2] Apparently due to a very sudden huge increase in licensing fees from Microsoft for the code in WIN-OS/2. |
From: Bruno H. <ha...@il...> - 2000-01-28 19:24:42
|
Raymond writes: > As a "long-time" user of OS/2, I think it's dead.[1] I'm pretty sure > IBM has said many times there will not be any version of OS/2 after > Warp 4 for personal use. IBM's policy is to continue to support it > for about 5 years or so, but that's it. Thanks for speaking up. I was really hesitating whether to keep the msdos.d stuff for the sake of OS/2. Bruno |