Re: [OctDev] Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#344995: octave-forge: FTBFS (ia64, mips, .../unstable): fixed.h: No such file or directory

[David B. <Dav...@mo...>]

Paul Kienzle wrote:

>
> On Dec 28, 2005, at 8:14 AM, David Bateman wrote:
>
>> Paul Kienzle wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds familiar and may already be fixed in CVS, so hopefully 
>>> it  is just a matter of releasing a new version.
>>>
>>> I think the hordes of octave-forge developers can manage this 
>>> before  the new year.
>>>
>>> The steps are as usual:
>>>
>>> (1) post all outstanding changes to your packages
>>> (2) address outstanding bugs on the bug tracker
>>> (3) address outstanding bugs on the list, or add them to the bug 
>>> tracker
>>> (4) purge functions which have made it into 2.1.72
>>> (5) test build on windows, os x, linux
>>>
>>> Please help out where you can.
>>>
>>> Also for all the octave-forge functions you are using, add some 
>>> test  cases at the end if there are none there already so that we 
>>> can release  with more confidence.
>>>
>>> - Paul
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Can we delay a little bit. My reasoning is that I'd like the new 
>> autoload function in 2.9.x to be used by octave-forge if available to 
>> allow me to significantly reduce the size of my MinGW build by 
>> removing all of the symbolic links in octave-forge. The easiest way 
>> to do this would be to have "make install" diff all of the binary 
>> files in the directory being installed and see if they are the same 
>> and if so don't install it but add an autoload command to the PKG_ADD 
>> file.  You can't just check if it is a symbolic link, as they aren't 
>> under MinGW (which is the problem).
>>
>> I'll try and write a script for this rapidly so that it doesn't hold 
>> up the release too much. As for purging functions, it is a little bit 
>> more complex than that, as most of the functions merged into octave 
>> from octave-forge went into 2.9.x release only, and so rather than 
>> purging these functions, they will need a conditional installation. I 
>> can attack some of these as well if someone doesn't get there first...
>
>
> Do you need a 2.1.72 MinGW release?  After a branch we can do a 
> further purge for the 2.9.x release, and add the appropriate autoload 
> statements for symlinked functions.
>
> While automatically checking for shadowed functions on install would 
> be a good thing, I want to minimize effort because I don't have a 
> whole lot of time to put into this.  Also, we should be moving to 
> Soren's packaging system, and this feature should be added to the 
> packaging system rather than the octave-forge installer.
>
> - Paul
>
If the goal is a specific 2.1.72 release this this is an appropriate 
action. However, if you want the release to also be viable for the 
latest 2.9.x releases then you need the conditional building/installing 
of functions like regexp there are imported into 2.9.x and not 2.1.72... 
It seems to me that is a bigger task than writing the script in sh to 
check for similar binary files..

Its your call Paul, do you want a 2.1.72 specific release or a 
2.1.72/2.9.5 release?

Regards
David

-- 
David Bateman                                Dav...@mo...
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary