From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2004-11-30 14:06:32
|
Brian Mastenbrook <bma...@cs...> writes: > 1. Don't make any. > 2. Make the binaries without sb-unicode. > Or, if we make the binaries with unicode, there are two options: > 3. Touch test-passed in the sb-md5 directory and ship it, knowing that > users who use sb-md5 will see their MD5 computed values change. > 4. Don't touch test-passed and distribute without sb-md5. > 5. Some combination of #3 or #4 and #2. > > My personal feeling is that option #3 is the right option: I'd like to > ship with unicode to get users testing, and it doesn't make sense to > not ship sb-md5 just because the tests haven't been fixed. However, I > could see an argument for #2 - waiting until there are encode and > decode to string functions before shipping binaries with unicode. #5 > would be a lot of work. Again, speaking personally, I'd rather #4; that way, if anyone feels that they need sb-md5 in their binaries, they have an incentive to get down and make it happen. I see #3 as dishonest -- what is the point of having tests for contrib modules which we have always said have a slightly less supported status than the main body of code, if at the least provocation we circumvent those tests? It's not just a question of fixing the tests: the interface itself is broken, and despite two calls for contributions remains so. I believe Kevin has chosen option #2 for his Debian uploads -- in some sense, I think that covers that base; it seems to me that #4 is the option that best reflects the state of SBCL development at release time. Cheers, Christophe |