|
From: Ferdinando A. <na...@am...> - 2003-11-07 14:20:42
|
Dirk: >Agreed in principle. Pristine upstream sources are a good thing. > >As I mentioned, I did make a slight mistake by calling it 0.3.4 in the first >line of the changelog paragraph: >[...] >So it's a trade off. If we really feel that the tarballs must be identical, >I do a new upload -- but then I must also use a higher number such as >0.3.4.1 or 0.3.4.final or whatever. > >As we'd trade one inconsistency for another, shall we agree to sit tight. Today I fixed 3 more doc files, and at least one of them is relevant in my opinion: the list of copyright holder in the License. If everybody agree I would also fix 2 more minor issues: 1) remove the Intel OnTheEdgeRelease configuration (Marco: this is the last call ;-) 2) remove the 'typedef double Real' line in types.hpp, so to close the following bug report: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=824364&group_id=12740&atid=362740 As general cosideration on the release process, I noticed that the problems we usually have are about: 1) missing Win32 files in the tar.gz distribution 2) documentation updates The first point could be smoothed next time if I check Luigi's tarball before it is processed for Debian/RPM, the second one if everybody help revise the TXT files in the distribution and the first 50-60 pages of the doxygen documentation (in whatever format you prefer: pdf/ps/html/man/WinHelp) Of course it is of help to know as soon as possible if the build was ok with Debian on their multiple platforms, so we might assume that 2 rounds of Debian builds will be usual :) >I just uploaded the ql-python and ql-ruby packages. I'll pass on guile and >mzscheme which are to esoteric for me :) I checked QuantLib-Python and it works on Win32 QuantLib-Ruby 0.3.4 doesn't work, as it was for 0.3.3: Luigi, do you plan to investigate this for 0.3.4 or should we just take Ruby as a Unix only package? I haven't finished with QuantLib-MzScheme, but it should be ok ciao -- Nando |