RE: module bug in 3.0.8

[Mark L. <la...@mi...>]

> Hello, Mark.
> 
> Disclaimer: just a user, not clueful enough to develop.
> 
> I wrestled with whether or not to stick with modules-2.2b (already
> deployed in parts of the company, working mostly fine) or move to
> modules-3.1.1 (built, tested, working fine for me).  I opted to make
> the move to the newer version for the following reasons:
> 
>   1. modules-2.2b is a dead-end; doesn't build well with newer
>      versions of Tcl, and should we find some new feature that
>      we wish to use that exhibits a bug, there's no recourse.

I hacked modules-2.2b to build with the late(st) versions of tcl, and even
offered to post the patches, but the offer was politely declined.
 
>   2. active development on modules-3.x by (primarily) R.K. Owen
>      and Robert Minsk, perhaps other anonymous contributors.
> 
>   3. some cool features added recently like "is-loaded". (Thanks,
>      Robert.)
 
> The modules-interest list has been kinda quiet lately, but that's
> probably due in large part to the stability of modules-3.1.1.  I
> would suggest you try that version, and use a fairly modern version
> of Tcl.  If the problem persists, please post more info (OS version,
> build options, Tcl version, etc.).

or the stability of 2.2beta...

If I was using module 3.*, I would be posting a lot of bug reports. I
tried 3.1, and found an embarrasing bug, like trying to unload a module
twice would cause it to segv (I think Robert Minsk fixed this bug in the
latest patch). This lead me to believe that it wasn't stable. So I tried
3.0, and I get segv's with the xrdb stuff. And maybe it is just my
imagination, but it 3.* appears to run slower than 2.2beta.

I built using tcl8.0. That's what was on the system at the time, and the
./configure script didn't complain.

I hate to sound anal (I know I am), but something as low level as
'module' needs to be extremely robust. We have enough problems with the
other tools that 'module' loads... :)

-Mark