Menu
▾
▴
quantlib-dev
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-26 10:37:05
|
At 09:22 PM 8/22/03 -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
>The first working RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3 is attached.
Hi Liguo,
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...
>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.
> 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.
> 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?)
> 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.
Later,
Luigi
|
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-26 10:39:20
|
At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >This will be a mighty fine release. BTW, all the Debian packages on all the >architectures built fine for the golden master from last month: > >-- QuantLib itself was built on ten additional architectures by July 29 > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=quantlib 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? Just curious, Luigi |
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-26 12:10:37
|
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote: > At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > >This will be a mighty fine release. BTW, all the Debian packages on all > >the > >architectures built fine for the golden master from last month: > > > >-- QuantLib itself was built on ten additional architectures by July 29 > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=quantlib > > 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? Actually, it already does: test: test-stamp build test-stamp: build-stamp -$(MAKE) check touch test-stamp [...] binary-common: build test install [...] so test should be visited when a binary is built. Not sure why it doesn't / didn't. Will need to check. Dirk -- Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. -- Groucho Marx |
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-26 12:21:00
|
At 07:09 AM 8/26/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>Actually, it already does:
>
>test: test-stamp build
>test-stamp: build-stamp
> -$(MAKE) check
> touch test-stamp
>[...]
>binary-common: build test install
>[...]
>
>so test should be visited when a binary is built. Not sure why it doesn't /
>didn't. Will need to check.
Dirk,
from the logs, it looks as though the library is build, installed,
removed, and finally tested---so that the test suite doesn't find the
shared library to load. Maybe it should be build, test, install, remove?
Later,
Luigi
|
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-27 01:07:05
|
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
|
|
From: Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...> - 2003-08-26 11:23:25
|
> 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? Luigi: we're in synch! Incredible, isn't it? [I wouldn't even dare to cite "great minds think alike" since it's clear one of us isn't a great mind :) ] ------------ ciao -- Nando |
|
From: Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...> - 2003-08-26 11:21:56
|
>> 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. SourceForge project Unix name had to be lowercase, at least at the time when the QuantLib project was created ------------ ciao -- Nando |
|
From: Liguo S. <Lig...@va...> - 2003-08-26 18:22:57
|
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 |
