Menu
▾
▴
quantlib-dev
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-27 09:15:30
|
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 |
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2004-03-24 15:48:48
|
Hi all, final tarballs for the 0.3.5 release are available at the address <http://quantlib.org/gm>. Thanks to all who contributed to the library since last release. Dirk, Liguo, and Mark (welcome aboard): you can work your magic. As usual, packages should be build from these tarballs rather than cvs. Later, Luigi |
|
From: Ferdinando A. <na...@am...> - 2004-03-24 16:43:02
|
Luigi Ballabio wrote: >Mark (welcome aboard) ouch! Mark, I beg your pardon: I've subscribed you without introduction. Sorry. Well... please join me in welcoming Mark Treiber: he will provide fink packages (http://fink.sourceforge.net/) for QuantLib. Thank you Mark. ciao -- Nando |
|
From: Mark T. <mrt...@en...> - 2004-03-24 18:35:28
|
> > ouch! Mark, I beg your pardon: I've subscribed you without > introduction. Sorry. Quite all right. > > Well... please join me in welcoming Mark Treiber: he will provide fink > packages (http://fink.sourceforge.net/) for QuantLib. Thank you Mark. > Since there's a bit of confusion about how fink works I've pasted the reply to a question from Luigi below: > based on some kind of package-definition file? If so, we can put it in > the repository so that > a) running configure inserts the right version number automatically > and b) it gets included in the distribution tarball, so that it is > ready for you to use. (I already do the same for the RPM definition > file.) Well the package-definition file really is the fink package itself. The power with fink is that it not only handles the compilation and creation of .debs, it also handles downloading, verifying md5 checksums, patching and configuring. The .debs in fink are really only meant to manage files locally instead of for distribution. It many ways it more like gentoo than debian. Except that its more like debian when it comes to handling the different packages. Just like debian has stable and unstable trees, fink has the same trees (there are also separate trees for 10.3 and 10.2, unfortunately I can't test the package for the 10.2 tree) and instead of storing .debs in the trees, the fink .info files are stored in the trees. I've update the .info file that I'm using for QuantLib right now but I have to wait until its finally released so that the url and md5 of the file at sourceforge match what I have listed. Mark. |
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2004-03-24 20:10:19
|
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:48:36PM +0100, Luigi Ballabio wrote: > > Hi all, > final tarballs for the 0.3.5 release are available at the > address <http://quantlib.org/gm>. Thanks to all who contributed to the > library since last release. > > Dirk, Liguo, and Mark (welcome aboard): you can work your magic. As > usual, packages should be build from these tarballs rather than cvs. And we'll label them 0.3.5, right? These tarballs will simply be copied over and become the release versions, right? Dirk -- The relationship between the computed price and reality is as yet unknown. -- From the pac(8) manual page |
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2004-03-25 08:17:40
|
On 2004.03.24 21:10, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > final tarballs for the 0.3.5 release are available. > > And we'll label them 0.3.5, right? Right. They're the real thing. Later, Luigi |
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2004-03-24 20:37:04
|
Hi, Luigi, All the tarballs compiled successfully on my box, except the Guild and the MzScheme tarballs. There has been no work to compile them into RPM's. There seem to be no interest to urge me to do it. :) Let me know if anyone has problem compiling them. I will compile the RPM packages as soon as the tarballs are finalized. (Is it already?) Thanks for the wonderful job. Liguo Ballabio wrote: > > Hi all, > final tarballs for the 0.3.5 release are available at the address > <http://quantlib.org/gm>. Thanks to all who contributed to the > library since last release. > > Dirk, Liguo, and Mark (welcome aboard): you can work your magic. As > usual, packages should be build from these tarballs rather than cvs. > > Later, > Luigi > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Quantlib-dev mailing list > Qua...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev |
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2004-03-24 21:21:20
|
Liguo Song wrote: > Hi, Luigi, > > All the tarballs compiled successfully on my box, except the Guild and > the MzScheme tarballs. There has been no work to compile them into > RPM's. There It should be Guile, not Guild. :) Liguo |
|
From: Ferdinando A. <na...@am...> - 2004-03-25 09:35:44
|
Hi Liguo >I will compile the RPM packages as soon as the tarballs are finalized. (Is >it already?) the packages at www.quantlib.org/gm/ are final. I will upload them to SF along with the Win32 packages by the end of the week. Liguo: as soon as you have the RPMs just send me a link and I will upload them too. I will announce the 0.3.5 on March 31. By that date I guess Debian and Fink will be ready too. ciao -- Nando |
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2004-03-25 20:14:05
|
Hi, Nando, The RPM files are available now. Here is the link http://nlog.phy.vanderbilt.edu/SoftwareProjects/QuantLib/ Let me know if there is any problem. Liguo Ferdinando Ametrano wrote: > Hi Liguo > >> I will compile the RPM packages as soon as the tarballs are >> finalized. (Is it already?) > > the packages at www.quantlib.org/gm/ are final. I will upload them to > SF along with the Win32 packages by the end of the week. Liguo: as > soon as you have the RPMs just send me a link and I will upload them too. > > I will announce the 0.3.5 on March 31. By that date I guess Debian and > Fink will be ready too. > > ciao -- Nando > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Quantlib-dev mailing list > Qua...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev |
|
From: Mark T. <mrt...@en...> - 2004-03-24 22:20:07
|
> > final tarballs for the 0.3.5 release are available at the address > <http://quantlib.org/gm>. Thanks to all who contributed to the library > since last release. > Both the main library and the python wrapper compile and test fine under fink. Those are the only two I have make packages for at the moment. Thanks for the great work. Mark. |
|
From: Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...> - 2003-08-27 09:49:07
|
>(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 |
|
From: Liguo S. <Lig...@va...> - 2003-08-27 19:41:38
|
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 |
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-27 11:37:02
|
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 |
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-27 11:46:39
|
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
|
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2003-08-27 14:10:06
|
> >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 |
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-27 14:25:30
|
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
|
|
From: Liguo S. <Lig...@va...> - 2003-08-27 18:56:22
|
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 |
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2003-08-27 14:04:10
|
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 > |
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-27 20:53:38
|
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
|
|
From: Liguo S. <Lig...@va...> - 2003-08-27 21:14:20
|
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
>
|
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-27 22:23:08
|
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 |
|
From: Liguo S. <lig...@va...> - 2003-08-28 01:13:10
|
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 |
|
From: Luigi B. <lui...@fa...> - 2003-08-28 06:59:37
|
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
|
|
From: Dirk E. <ed...@de...> - 2003-08-28 10:24:21
|
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
|
