Re: TclX package again
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:51:39 CDT David Engel (david@elo.ods.com)
wrote:
> Note: I'm copying this to debian-devel to get feedback on my response
> to Philippe's question #3. If you do respond, please include a direct
> response to me in addition to the list. I was inadvertantly dropped
> from debian-devel three weeks ago and no amount of trying on my or
> Bruce's parts has been able to get me back on the list.
Can anyone put me on the list too ? In the meantime can you post
followups to my address as well as the list, please...
> Philippe Troin writes:
> > 1) When compiling (make -f debian.rules) Tcl (needed to build tclX,
> > what a shame that you need the tcl/tk source tree), I have errors
> > in tclPosixStr.c about a case having same value (EDEADLOCK and
> > EDEADLK are both defined and have the same value). Fixed by adding
> > an #if EDEADLOCK != EDEADLK.
> > Did you recompile it lately ?
>
> I'm aware of the problem, but haven't had time to fix it yet.
It's a two lines fix actually. BTW, Tcl 7.4 has the same problem.
> > 2) I've tried to 'make test' in both tcl7.5 and tk4.1 source trees,
> > both failed. Shouldn't we report this to the Tcl/Tk maintainers
> > and/or try to fix it ? This works perfectly on other systems (tried
> > Solaris).
>
> What do you mean by failed? If you mean some individual tests fail,
> then that is expected. I believe all of the Tk failures are due to
> non-portable tests. I have not had time to look into the Tcl
> fileevent failures yet, but I suspect they are either due to
> non-portable tests also or libc bugs.
Some individual test failed for Tcl 7.5 (one test), Tk 4.1 (3 or 4
tests), TclX 7.5 (4 or 5tests). I'll try to check them out... when
I've got time.
> > 3) I think I should have tclX be the same (regarding package
> > management) and tcl and tk. ie, I will have tclX74 and tclX75, both
> > incompatible with tclX. tclX74-dev and tcl75-dev being mutually
> > exclusive too... What do you think about it ?
>
> I agree, for now. One change I'm considering is to give each major
> Tcl version it's own include directory (e.g. /usr/include/tcl7.4,
> /usr/include/tcl7.5). This would make it easier to have multiple
> development packages installed simultaneously. The limitation of only
> having one installed at a time is quickly becoming a problem because
> of the way Tcl/Tk-based packages are tied to a specific version of
> Tcl/Tk. What do you think?
I think it's fine. Tcl and Tk will need a little package work, but
TclX is already version clean as it's installed in
/usr/lib/tclX/<version>. But we'll have to implement
/etc/alternatives stuff for the .a and the .so.
Do you see any other problem ?
> > 4) I plan having a separate tclX7[45]-doc package for the help
> > system ( and /usr/bin/tclhelp). What's your
> > opinion on that one ?
>
> I've considered doing something like this with the section 3 manual
> pages for Tcl/Tk. The reason I hadn't done it yet is that I didn't
> want to create yet another package unless I really needed to or
> someone else wanted it.
I think keeping the manual pages within the devel package is good.
However for TclX, /usr/lib/tclX/7.*/help contains a duplicate of
all the man pages formatted differently to be used with tclhelp,
hence the new 'doc' package. I must admit I never use this feature
myself.
But generally, keeping the manpages with the development stuff
should be a good thing.
Phil.
Reply to: