Re: [Jackit-devel] Re: RFC: EXP merge of OSX portability work
Robert Jordens <rjo-lists@gmx.de> writes:
> [Tue, 23 Mar 2004] Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > I always run `make' before `make dist' or `make distcheck'. I do that
> > to ensure that all distributed files are up-to-date. This is what the
> > "Goat Book" (_GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool_) recommends.
>
> But the files distributed in CVS should ba up-to-date as well ;-]
They should be, and they usually are, but it's not guaranteed. With
autoconf, users need not have the full developer tool chain installed.
So, it's important that all the front-end generated files be up to
date. Debian deals with these issues in other ways (build-depends,
etc.), AFAICT.
> > The 0.195.x version is a hack to keep it distinct from the current CVS
> > HEAD. If we go ahead with this merge, it will become 0.96.0.
>
> Yes. We could upload that package to experimental. But we would have to
> reversion it because of 0.195 > 0.96. BTW: Be warned: If you install the
> packages with version 0.195, you will have to force a "downgrade"
> (version-wise), afterwards if you want to go back to 0.94 or upgrade to 0.96.
Please don't upload 0.195.x to experimental. Let's wait until it has
been merged into CVS HEAD. Right now, I just want to prove that we
won't totally break the build and packaging system when we do that.
So far, it seems encouraging. I'd be willing to do the merge with a
few outstanding problems on some platforms, as long as it looks like
the basic scheme is sound and the fixes will mainly be local to those
platforms.
> [Tue, 23 Mar 2004] Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > With that patch, I think both ia64 and s390 should build.
>
> I will try today or tomorrow.
Thanks.
The current Debian `jackd' package is built for these platforms...
alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
I've got code (from libstdc++) for...
alpha cris generic hppa i386 i486 ia64 m68k mips powerpc s390 sparc
The `mipsel' is configured as `mips' for linux platforms (only).
Also, the <atomicity.h> in `generic' is still broken, so there may be
problems with `arm'. What is that, anyway? Does libstdc++ support
it?
So far, I recall reports of successful EXP builds on `alpha', `i386',
and `powerpc'. Did I miss any others?
> Another thing. If we could agree on another version that passes the
> test, I would upload JACK to experimental and let a wider audience test
> and maybe build it on other architectures.
>
> Something like this would be fine:
>
> dpkg --compare-versions 0.95exp.16 '>>' 0.94.0 && echo true
> true
I'll use the version scheme you recommend. I didn't know about that
--compare-versions trick. It also looks like this is true, which
should be useful...
$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.95exp.16 '<<' 0.95.0 && echo true
true
But, since we're still working in a CVS branch, direct linear
comparisons with HEAD version numbers are not totally meaningful.
Both branches lack some features found in the other. There is no
"partial ordering" in the mathematical sense of that phrase.
That is why I'd prefer to avoid publishing anything from EXP, even in
experimental. It will confuse people.
--
joq
Reply to: