Re: RFS: open-axiom
On 8/28/11, Igor Pashev <pashev.igor@gmail.com> wrote:
> 28.08.2011 19:00, David Bremner пишет:
Without having looked at all at your package (and, note, I am purely a
random bystander, not a mentor or packager or anything):
>> I'm not sure if open-axiom uses this feature (and I notice sbcl itself
>> also has broken #! lines in it's fasl files. In your case, I suspect the
>> upstream build process is putting the wrong path into the #!
>> lines. interpsys isn't installed by debian sbcl and it isn't included in
>> the open-axiom source package.
>
> interpsys is a main tool to build OpenAxiom,
> it is not requred to run OA. One can think of it
> as of libtool or similar.
"interpsys" would be a Build-Depends of some sort for OpenAxiom then,
I assume? I do not see it mentioned in
open-axiom_1.4.1+svn~2299-1.dsc. (I peeked.) Is it packaged and/or
available in Debian, then?
> (AO includes SBCL core, so SBCL itself is not required to run AO.
> And there is no problem to upgrade system SBCL :-)
Might this cause a problem for someone down the line? I'm thinking of
something along the lines of, a bug (possibly a security-related bug)
is found in SBCL (possibly by SBCL upstream), in the portion that is
duplicated inside of OpenAxiom, and is fixed in the SBCL package
itself within Debian.
Who is going to know, and how are they going to know, that the same
bug (at least potentially) exists within OpenAxiom and needs to be
found and fixed there, too?
I realize this may not be feasible to address within the Debian
package, it may have to be resolved by OpenAxiom upstream (assuming
they are willing to do so). But, I read of problems various
distributions (Debian, Fedora, etc) have with applications like Google
Chromium (the open source version of the Google Chrome browser), where
Google has chosen to include its own copy of many different software
libraries within the source distribution for Chromium rather than use
the distribution- / system-supplied version of these libraries, and
each distribution has to decide how to address this decision by
Google. What you describe above for OpenAxiom sounds like the same
sort of thing, albeit on a much smaller scale. So...
Thanks for your time. Hope this is of some use, interest.
Joseph
Reply to: