From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2013-10-31 13:03:47
|
Hi, There is a flaw in the binary distribution of sbcl-1.1.13; the binary and install scripts were not updated to take account of the new layout of contribs, and so installation from the binary tarball yields a contribless sbcl. I'm working on a fix; in the meantime, please don't upload any binaries to sourceforge. Best, Christophe |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2013-11-01 09:43:23
|
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > There is a flaw in the binary distribution of sbcl-1.1.13; the binary > and install scripts were not updated to take account of the new layout > of contribs, and so installation from the binary tarball yields a > contribless sbcl. > > I'm working on a fix; in the meantime, please don't upload any binaries > to sourceforge. In order to build binaries of sbcl-1.1.13 that actually install correctly, I think what needs to happen is: * build the tagged version as normal; * apply the patch from 24e3d887e4b1036f07bc60ae45327d89eeaa678b (which only affects binary-distribution.sh and install.sh); * run binary-distribution.sh as normal. This will generate a tarball containing a binary of sbcl-1.1.13, with all the relevant files, and scripts that will actually manage to install it. This only affects the building of binary distributions; any users who build and install directly from source should not have any problems. I apologize for the inconvenience. Best wishes, Christophe |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2013-11-18 00:42:20
|
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: > > > There is a flaw in the binary distribution of sbcl-1.1.13; the binary > > and install scripts were not updated to take account of the new layout > > of contribs, and so installation from the binary tarball yields a > > contribless sbcl. > > > > I'm working on a fix; in the meantime, please don't upload any binaries > > to sourceforge. > > In order to build binaries of sbcl-1.1.13 that actually install > correctly, I think what needs to happen is: > > * build the tagged version as normal; > * apply the patch from 24e3d887e4b1036f07bc60ae45327d89eeaa678b > (which only affects binary-distribution.sh and install.sh); > * run binary-distribution.sh as normal. > > This will generate a tarball containing a binary of sbcl-1.1.13, with > all the relevant files, and scripts that will actually manage to install > it. > > This only affects the building of binary distributions; any users who > build and install directly from source should not have any problems. > Is this sufficient for Windows? I noticed that in 1.1.13 all contribs (appear to) fail to build, while in HEAD they appear to build fine. Is there some other commit I can cherry pick to make this work? I assume the one you've referenced won't get the job done because I'm seeing these failures in the build from source. I apologize for the inconvenience. > > Best wishes, > > Christophe > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that > developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white > paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep > Android apps secure. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2013-11-18 07:30:51
|
Elliott Slaughter <ell...@gm...> writes: > Is this sufficient for Windows? I noticed that in 1.1.13 all contribs > (appear to) fail to build, while in HEAD they appear to build fine. Is > there some other commit I can cherry pick to make this work? I assume the > one you've referenced won't get the job done because I'm seeing these > failures in the build from source. Hm, maybe cf49f2d086069a9c1b57f501df9a6a0bd3a34c3c? > I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm sorry too :-/. Maybe it would be more straightforward to just not build 1.1.13 binaries and wait for 1.1.14? Cheers, Christophe |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2013-11-21 03:03:37
|
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...>wrote: > Elliott Slaughter <ell...@gm...> writes: > > > Is this sufficient for Windows? I noticed that in 1.1.13 all contribs > > (appear to) fail to build, while in HEAD they appear to build fine. Is > > there some other commit I can cherry pick to make this work? I assume the > > one you've referenced won't get the job done because I'm seeing these > > failures in the build from source. > > Hm, maybe cf49f2d086069a9c1b57f501df9a6a0bd3a34c3c? > > > I apologize for the inconvenience. > > I'm sorry too :-/. Maybe it would be more straightforward to just not > build 1.1.13 binaries and wait for 1.1.14? > Yeah, let's wait for 1.1.14. (I've been slow enough that it won't be all that long.) -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |