quantlib-dev — Discussion of QuantLib development

[Quantlib-dev] 0.3.3 branch

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

Hi all,
	the final tarballs for release 0.3.3 are now frozen, and the
R000303f0-branch on the CVS tree is now a dead branch.
Any development hence goes on the trunk.

Oh, and thanks everybody for the work gone into this release.

Bye for now,
		Luigi

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

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

I finally found the trouble making optimization flag. It is
-ffast-math.

So, the test-suite will fail on the Testing Monte Carlo European
engines against analytic results with error: 
 "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

I am not sure whether it is due to the libraries or the test-suite
itself. I am going to leave out this troublesome optimization flag.

Hope someone else can learn from my mistake. :)

The final version RPM packages will be ready soon.


Liguo



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Liguo Song wrote:

> Hi, Dirk,
> 
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with quantlib-test-suite. My 
> RPM packages build fine, but when running quantlib-test-suite, it runs through 
> all the tests, but ends up with the following error message:
> 
>      !!!FAILURES!!!
>      Test Results:
>      Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
> 
> 
>      1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results (E)
>       "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"
> 
> 
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?
> 
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned 
> previously.
> 
> Liguo
> 
> 
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> > previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
> > it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.
> > 
> > It dies here:
> > 
> > /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> > make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                     
> >                     Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                    of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                            -- W.E. Dijkstra
> > 					   
> > ======================
> > Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> > ======================
> > Testing joint calendars...
> > Testing cap/floor dependency on
> > strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> > undefined symbol:
> > _ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> > FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> > ===================================================
> > 1 of 1 tests failed
> > Please report to qua...@li...
> > ===================================================
> > 
> > I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> > these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> > 
> > Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> > for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> > 
> > Dirk
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> Qua...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
> 

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:38:15PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> At 05:23 AM 8/28/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?
> 
> Ok, go ahead.

Done -- build reports will start to trickle in via
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=edd in a few hours.  

I'll follow up with ql-ruby and ql-python tonight.

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

At 05:23 AM 8/28/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?

Ok, go ahead.

Bye,
         Luigi

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:59:32AM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> At 05:08 PM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
> >is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get
> >
> >[...]
> >Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
> >Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...
> >
> >OK (64 tests)
> 
> Dirk,
>         it looks like it was trying to load the library you had previously 
> installed instead of the one you had just built---which caused it to fail 
> linking the shared library at run-time, but got resolved by installing the 
> new library. Maybe a linker-path thing?

Possibly. Strange that we were not bitten by that before, and too bad we do
not get the testing results at built time.

So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?

Dirk


-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

At 05:08 PM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
>is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get
>
>[...]
>Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
>Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...
>
>OK (64 tests)

Dirk,
         it looks like it was trying to load the library you had previously 
installed instead of the one you had just built---which caused it to fail 
linking the shared library at run-time, but got resolved by installing the 
new library. Maybe a linker-path thing?

Later,
         Luigi

RE: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

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

Hi, Dirk,

./configure;make;make check works smoothly here. So, it might be one of =
the
optimization flags that I used.

FYI, I am using gcc version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7). =
Also,
just in case that it matters, I am using automake-1.7.6-1 and
autoconf-2.57-3.

I will let you know if I figure out anything new.


Liguo



-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel [mailto:ed...@de...]=20
Sent: 27 August 2003 17:09
To: Liguo Song
Cc: qua...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]


On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
> Hi, Dirk,
>=20
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with=20
> quantlib-test-suite. My RPM packages build fine, but when running=20
> quantlib-test-suite, it runs through all the tests, but ends up with =
the=20
> following error message:
>=20
>     !!!FAILURES!!!
>     Test Results:
>     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
>=20
>=20
>     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic =
results

>     (E)
>      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the =
package
is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get

[...]
Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...

OK (64 tests)


Dirk

>=20
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any =
input?
>=20
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi =
mentioned=20
> previously.
>=20
> Liguo
>=20
>=20
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on =
the
> >previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first=20
> >noticed
> >it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues,
re-ran=20
> >it.
> >
> >It dies here:
> >
> >/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> >make[3]: Entering directory
home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                   =20
> >                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                   of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >					  =20
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >Testing joint calendars...
> >Testing cap/floor dependency on
> >strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error:
lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> >undefined symbol:
>
>_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS=
_4D
ateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5Xi=
bor
EEEiS5_S8_
> >FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> =
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> >1 of 1 tests failed
> >Please report to qua...@li...
> =
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> >
> >I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 =
of
> >these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> >Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this =
works
> >for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> Qua...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
>=20

--=20
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have =
others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
> Hi, Dirk,
> 
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with 
> quantlib-test-suite. My RPM packages build fine, but when running 
> quantlib-test-suite, it runs through all the tests, but ends up with the 
> following error message:
> 
>     !!!FAILURES!!!
>     Test Results:
>     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
> 
> 
>     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results 
>     (E)
>      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get

[...]
Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...

OK (64 tests)


Dirk

> 
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?
> 
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned 
> previously.
> 
> Liguo
> 
> 
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> >previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first 
> >noticed
> >it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran 
> >it.
> >
> >It dies here:
> >
> >/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> >make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                    
> >                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                   of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >					   
> >======================
> >Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> >======================
> >Testing joint calendars...
> >Testing cap/floor dependency on
> >strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> >undefined symbol:
> >_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> >FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> >===================================================
> >1 of 1 tests failed
> >Please report to qua...@li...
> >===================================================
> >
> >I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> >these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> >Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> >for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> Qua...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
> 

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

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

Hi, Dirk,

I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with quantlib-test-suite. My 
RPM packages build fine, but when running quantlib-test-suite, it runs through 
all the tests, but ends up with the following error message:

     !!!FAILURES!!!
     Test Results:
     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1


     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results (E)
      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"


Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?

BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned 
previously.

Liguo


Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
> it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.
> 
> It dies here:
> 
> /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
>                     
>                     Testing can never demonstrate the absence
>                    of errors in software, only their presence.
>                                            -- W.E. Dijkstra
> 					   
> ======================
> Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> ======================
> Testing joint calendars...
> Testing cap/floor dependency on
> strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> undefined symbol:
> _ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> ===================================================
> 1 of 1 tests failed
> Please report to qua...@li...
> ===================================================
> 
> I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> 
> Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> 
> Dirk
> 

[Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.

It dies here:

/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
                    
                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
                   of errors in software, only their presence.
                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
					   
======================
Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
======================
Testing joint calendars...
Testing cap/floor dependency on
strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
undefined symbol:
_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
===================================================
1 of 1 tests failed
Please report to qua...@li...
===================================================

I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
these passed with flying colours yesterday.

Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Quantlib-dev] Finalizing RPM Packages

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

Dear QuantLib users,

As the 0.3.3 is at the edge of finalizing, I am also finalizing the RPM 
packages. The pre-release RPM packages are avaible at 
http://nlog.phy.vanderbilt.edu/SoftwareProjects/QuantLib/

Here is the overall structure of the RPM packages:

QuantLib: The main package include the libraries. This should be the only 
package needed by the application using QuantLib, which will show up soon. The 
files included in this packages are
     /usr/lib/libQuantLib.la
     /usr/lib/libQuantLib.so.0
     /usr/lib/libQuantLib.so.0.0.0
  and miscellaneous documentation lives under
     ./Doc/images/, ./Doc/pages/ and ./Doc/Examples/

QuantLib-devel: The headers and the static libraries. This would be needed by 
the programmers who use QuantLib. The files included in this packages are
     /usr/include/ql/*
     /usr/lib/libQuantLib.a
     /usr/lib/libQuantLib.so
     /usr/bin/quantlib-config
     /usr/man/man1/quantlib-config.1
     /usr/share/aclocal/quantlib.m4
     /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/quantlib.el
     /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/quantlib.elc
     ./Examples/*

QuantLib-test-suite: The optional test-suite program to validate the 
installation of the QuantLib libraries.
     /usr/bin/quantlib-test-suite
     /usr/man/man1/quantlib-test-suite.1


QuantLib-*.src.rpm: This is the source package of the above binary packages. You 
can rebuild this package to generate the binary packages that suits your need. 
The commnad to recomile this package is
     rpmbuild -bb QuantLib-0.3.3-0.src.rpm

NOTE: The test-suite package will not be built if no cppunit, cppunit-devel and 
cppunit-static RPM packages are install on your machine. And, the rebuilding 
will fail if the version of these cppunit packages < 1.8.0. I also have prepared 
cppunit 1.8.0 RPM packages for RedHat Linux at the above URL.

Any comments, suggestions and criticism are welcome. :)

Later.


Liguo

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Final tarballs

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

Hi, Nando,

Here is the URL for the RPM packages.
http://nlog.phy.vanderbilt.edu/SoftwareProjects/QuantLib/

The i686 packages are optimized for Pentium II and above, while the i386 
packages should work on all intel or compatible cpus.

The src package is for people who needs to rebuild the binary packages to fit 
their needs.

Please let me know if there is any problem.


Later.


Liguo



Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> 
>> (Liguo, you can deal with Nando wrt where to upload the RPMs)
> 
> 
> just let me know where are the RPM files and I'll download them, then I 
> will add them to the SourceForge release files...
> 
> 
> ------------
> ciao -- Nando

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

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

Hi, Dirk,

Thanks for the nice advice.
> One word of advice, if I may: don't do that. You get crazy if you try to
> debug errors by asking people questions like "was it version $foo downloaded
> on day x, or on day y".  Making a distinction between versions is just what
> version numbers are for.
The dark magics of RPM are Release and Epoch, which will help me avoid the 
problems. Release is the "1" in 0.3.3-1, and Epoch is something similar to 
Release but is hidden from the normal version information.

> That said, following some offline chat with Luigi, I will call the Debian
> upload 0.3.3-1 because these are deemed final. Should hell freeze over, I
> can always follow up with Debian revision 0.3.3-2 ...
It might be a good idea to keep the version string consistent with different 
packages. So, I will also call the RPM packages 0.3.3-1.

Later.


Liguo

[Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:10:01AM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
> > >I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
> > >overwrite them.
> > 
> > Of course, no problem.
> It should be OK for the RPMs to call them 0.3.3 since this would be
> the first release of RPMs. And also, with some dark magic, I can make
> a 0.3.3 overwrite another 0.3.3. :)

One word of advice, if I may: don't do that. You get crazy if you try to
debug errors by asking people questions like "was it version $foo downloaded
on day x, or on day y".  Making a distinction between versions is just what
version numbers are for.

That said, following some offline chat with Luigi, I will call the Debian
upload 0.3.3-1 because these are deemed final. Should hell freeze over, I
can always follow up with Debian revision 0.3.3-2 ...

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

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

> >I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
> >overwrite them.
> 
> Of course, no problem.
It should be OK for the RPMs to call them 0.3.3 since this would be
the first release of RPMs. And also, with some dark magic, I can make
a 0.3.3 overwrite another 0.3.3. :)

Liguo

[Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

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

Hi, Luigi,

That sounds great. We are ahead of time to release 0.3.3.

I am going to download the final tar balls and perform my magic on it.
:) And I will talk to Nando about uploading the RPMs.

Thanks for the nice job.


Liguo



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Luigi Ballabio wrote:

> 
> Hi all,
> 	unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I just 
> uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
> I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt, 
> which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.
> 
> Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs 
> based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)
> 
> Nando, are you making the actual release? (Liguo, you can deal with Nando 
> wrt where to upload the RPMs)
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Luigi
> 

[Quantlib-dev] Spam headers

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

Hi all,
	what with these X-Spam-Report thing that started getting added to 
postings? Is it a global SourceForge thing or a list setting? And am I the 
only one that find it annoying to have to wade through a page of them 
before getting at the mail content?

Bye,
	Luigi

[Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

At 06:31 AM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
>overwrite them.

Of course, no problem.

Bye,
         Luigi

[Quantlib-dev] Re: Final tarballs

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 	unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I 
> 	just uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
> I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt, 
> which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.
> 
> Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs 
> based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)

I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
overwrite them.  That may mean re-releasing the same tarball under two
names, but other wise I cannot do the test release.  Or would have to call
any subsequent release 0.3.3.1 or such which is worse (as the rest of the
world would still call it 0.3.3)

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Final tarballs

[Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...>]

>(Liguo, you can deal with Nando wrt where to upload the RPMs)

just let me know where are the RPM files and I'll download them, then I 
will add them to the SourceForge release files...


------------
ciao -- Nando 

[Quantlib-dev] Final tarballs

[Luigi B. <lui...@fa...>]

Hi all,
	unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I just 
uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt, 
which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.

Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs 
based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)

Nando, are you making the actual release? (Liguo, you can deal with Nando 
wrt where to upload the RPMs)

Thanks,
	Luigi

Re: [Quantlib-dev] Re: RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:09:46AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> > At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Dirk,
> >         I guess the test-suite wasn't included in the workflow. When the 
> > final tarballs are ready (any day now) could you add a "make check" to the 
> > thing?
[...]
> so test should be visited when a binary is built.  Not sure why it doesn't /
> didn't. Will need to check.

That all works (again) now. For the record, all 62 tests passed on i386.
Thanks to all for writing such an extensive suite of tests -- they will be
fully utilized again with the next upload.

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Quantlib-dev] Re: RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3

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

Hi, Luigi,

>         I've been trying to add the spec to the cvs tree. My question 
> is, does it need to include the version number in its name? I wouldn't 
> want to remove it from cvs and add it again each time we release...
I was trying to follow a convention, which obviously doesn't work well here. So, 
we don't need to include the version number it its name. Sorry for the trouble.


>> There are still a lot to improve with this spec file, and I'd like to 
>> hear
>> some opinions about the following issues:
>>     1. It is conventional to separate the dynamic libs, static libs, and
>> header files into separate packages. Should we do the same thing here?
> 
> 
> As you like it.
I will update the current RPM spec file first. If there is still time, I will 
try to seperate them into different packages.


>>     2. Cppunit is only needed for the test-suite, so should we still 
>> make it
>> required? Or just drop the test-suite if no cppunit is available?
> 
> 
> I would just drop the test-suite.
I will configure the spec file in such way that the test-suite will be dropped 
if cppunit is not present.

>>     3. The documents for QuantLib is not included in the tar ball 
>> right now,
>> should I put the docs into the RPM package?
> 
> 
> Maybe it might be another package? (or packages?)
Yes. I will work on the doc package later.

> 
>>     4. A relative minor point about the name, is quantlib better than
>> QuantLib? As the Unix name of the project is quantlib.
> 
> 
> As you like it.
Then, quantlib it is. Somehow, it pleases the eyes. :)

Later.


Liguo

[Quantlib-dev] Re: debian platform

[Dirk E. <ed...@de...>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:28:44PM +0200, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> > so it looks like we're having a logic error. The dyn. libs are being
> built,
> > installed into tmp directory from the deb is built ... but not found by
> the
> > dyn. loader.
> >
> > Do cppunit / libtool have a way around that?
> 
> ehm, hum... ehm...
> Luigi? :-)

It was an ordering issue. Forcing test to be run before install solved that.
I have to twiddle some other packaging details, but should be fine for the
0.3.3 release.

Dirk

-- 
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Quantlib-dev] Re: debian platform

[Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...>]

> so it looks like we're having a logic error. The dyn. libs are being
built,
> installed into tmp directory from the deb is built ... but not found by
the
> dyn. loader.
>
> Do cppunit / libtool have a way around that?

ehm, hum... ehm...
Luigi? :-)