Re: [Quantlib-dev] QuantLib-Ruby-0.3.3 bug report and building assistance.

[Liguo S. <Lig...@va...>]

Hi, Dirk,

Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 03:12:43PM -0600, Liguo Song wrote:
> 
>>I am building the RPM package for QuantLib-Ruby-0.3.3. As I know nothing 
>>about ruby, so I might need someone with more experience with this package 
>>to help me out.
> 
> 
> Luigi helped me years ago, and I recall that I used some small patches of
> his in either install.rb or setup.rb, or both.  But based on the current
> diff.gz, I do no longer. Not sure when those ceased to be required, maybe
> around 0.3? 
> 
> Here is what I do, in a nutshell:
> 
> 
> cxxcompiler  = g++
> compilerflags  = -O2 
> 
>        
>        # per Luigi's suggestion	
>        touch quantlib_wrap.cpp
>        CXX="$(cxxcompiler)" 		\
>        CFLAGS="$(compilerflags)" 	\
>        CXXFLAGS="$(compilerflags)" 	$(RUBY) setup.rb build  
> 
> 
>        [...]
> 
>        CXX="$(cxxcompiler)"      	\
>        CFLAGS="$(compilerflags)" 	\
>        CXXFLAGS="$(compilerflags)" 	\
>        $(RUBY) setup.rb install --prefix=debian/$(package)
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at any Debian mirror for QuantLib-Ruby_0.3.3-4.diff.gz (for the
> most current release) which is a diff against the pristine QL sources.
Thanks for clarifying the steps for me. It gives me some ideas to improve my 
spec file to build the rpm package. :)


>>Second, does the test suite of QuantLib-Ruby require something like cppunit 
>>to run? If so, where can I get it?
> 
> 
> It's a Debian package for me, but I cheat and don't run this for QL-Ruby.
The test should be optional. But I'd like to make use of it if the required 
software is present. It would help to prevent a corrupted build, which happens 
when I tried to optimized the quantlib compile. But the test-suite saved the day 
there. :)

> 
> You can look at our build-logs if you want to compare warnings:
> 	http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=quantlib-ruby
> for all different build architectures going back to the 0.2.1 release.
I just looked at it. There is no such warning about these macros. Wierd. BTW, 
which one is i386/i686? Some names of the architectures are not familiar to me.

> BTW I'm all for 0.3.4 -- good idea AFAICT.
Same here, if I didn't mention before. Frequent bug fixing releases aside from 
the main developing branch is a great idea. I was just reading The Cathedral and 
the Bazaar by Eric Steven Raymond. It is some eye-opener for the open source 
software projects.

Have a nice weekend.


Liguo