On Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:33 AM Tim Daly (root) wrote: > > well, the build is proceeding and appears to be progressing > ok. of course i have no idea WHY it works since there are no > comments in the patch file. i'll test the graphics and hyperdoc > in the morning.
Great. It would be nice if Camm had the time to write explicit documentation for the patch, but I am quite sure that I can pull his comments from the axiom-devel email list over the last two years or so that (more or less) fully describe the approach he is using. Would you like me to send you what I find? > > so code appears in debian > with changes that are not in the master source tree > and is distributed under the name 'axiom' > and you don't consider that a fork.... > I didn't say that. I was under the impression that he was doing this with your full knowledge. But if you, as the primary Axiom developer, disapproved of this, then we would have to consider the debian port a "fork" at least in the sense that Camm or some other developer would be stuck maintaining it forever, but of course not in the sense that he is trying to make it work any differently than it does now under the other linux environments. There is a good reason to build Axiom in this particular way on Debian because Debian policy would not let Axiom to be built the way we do it now in the current Axiom distribution. They are very strict about the way the different packages and their prerequisites have to be organized in order to be compatible with the apt-get packaging. > but patching the original source files of gcl and noweb > to build axiom (but not a gcl or noweb distro) is considered > a fork? > I never said patching gcl the way we do in the current Axiom distribution was a fork since it is being done with the full knowledge of the gcl developer. Camm is intimately aware of these changes. They are extensions to gcl and do not affect the way gcl works any fundamental way. I just think that the way the build is done on Debian is a superior approach and that we should adopt it. > methinks you're being a bit harsh. Yes, perhaps I am. I should say something apologetic. I guess I am just feeling rather frustrated lately because progress is considerably less than I would have liked on several Axiom "fronts". Meanwhile I still want to get back to actually using Axiom for research. > forking is not intended in either case and i'd never claim > camm is trying to fork axiom. we've had close cooperation > over many years he's remotely logged onto my main laptop to > debug the original SELinux failure and we worked together to > corner an issue of semantics that was killing the axiom > compiler. i have the greatest respect for him and wouldn't > consider forking gcl under any circumstances. > I understand and did not mean to imply that. I am sure that Camm understands this. I think he is just being very very cautious about suggesting any changes in the way you are doing things. (And you keep saying: "Advocacy is volunteering" and so it scares people off ... ;) I don't know the situation with Norman Ramsey (noweb) but I do know that we haven't heard anything from him on the axiom-devel list since he sent the awk filter script some years ago. I think it is a pity that Axiom (and Tim Daly!) is not more well known for the commitment to literate programming. But I suppose if you find the intersection of the set of developers interested in literate programming with the set of developers interested in computer algebra, I guess it's not such a big crowd. > the fact that debian changes are not integrated into the > axiom source tree is likely due to miscommunication and > lack of time or lack of understanding, not malicious intent. > this needs to be fixed, though, as the debian version should > be buildable from the master sources. i was under the > impression that they were. Wow, that is a bit of shock to me since we have been talking about these differences between the Debian build and the Axiom distribution for almost two years now. Camm explained, what seems like ages ago to me, that the Debian policy would not permit Axiom to be built the way it is done in the current distribution. I am very glad that you agree that this should be fixed. We would also have to fix this in the axiom--windows--1 distribution but I guess we are still planning to merge the windows specific changes back into axiom--main--1 so that would probably still be the best way to go. It's been a year since our first release of Axiom on windows so I suppose that it is time to put some increased priority on trying to make that happen. (I mean me and whoever else would like to help do that... :) > > sending (or resending) patch files that fix the differences > is usually sufficient. > > if you'll push the noweb changes all the way thru the build > process and send patch files i'll 'fix' that also. > <sigh> Ok, if no one else steps forward to take this task, I guess I can do it by this weekend. Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer