> Storing binary files in a source code archive is something that > I have always objected to, but Tim insists on re-distributing > code this way. I really think we should stop doing this.
Binary files exist no matter what we do. The Axiom root directory contains binary image files as well as the src/doc/ps subdirectory. As for the 'redistributing code' we differ on philosophy. I've written extensively on the difference in philosophy. Bill and several others have taken the stance which can be positively characterized as "first, we assume that the users have all the prerequisites...." and negatively characterized as "the users will have to guess...." On the other hand I've taken the stance that can be positively characterized as "axiom builds should 'just work'..." and negatively characterized as "fork the world and do it ourselves..." I am regularly fielding questions of the form: > Camm, > > I tried to build Axiom on a debian machine and get: > > creating makedefc > sed: file conftest.s1 line 61: unterminated `s' command > creating windows/gcl.iss > sed: file conftest.s1 line 61: unterminated `s' command > creating windows/sysdir.bat > sed: file conftest.s1 line 61: unterminated `s' command > creating windows/install.lsp > sed: file conftest.s1 line 61: unterminated `s' command > > > suggestions? > > Tim Yes - my guess -- emacs is not installed? The Debian package is setup to require the packages listed under Build-depends: in debian/control at build time, one of which is an emacs. The error message obviously needs work :-). In a system as complex as Axiom it is impractical to expect users to understand all the dependent paths. Even I get confused. However when I understand the confusion I write makefile changes that ensure that others do not have the same problems. We COULD distribute Axiom and watch the builds fail over and over again because users have broken versions of noweb or their native version of GCL does not include the correct libraries or emacs is not installed or their version of some software is not right for Axiom. The practical effect of such a policy is that every user has the responsibility of upgrading their system to meet our requirements. And it means that Axiom WILL NOT build successfully on most systems. I suggest you use the 'silver' system to experiment with trying to remove binaries and require native GCL/noweb installs. My experience tells me that you'll find it won't build everywhere. It certainly will NOT build on any of my current systems as my native installs do not include the required axiom patches. Alternatively we COULD pursue the philosophy that Axiom should 'just work'. That means that Axiom WILL build successfully on most systems. The practical effect of such a philosophy means that we distribute binaries with patches until the patches are accepted in the upstream systems AND the upstream systems become the standard in most distributions. I still hold the fundamental philosophy that 'Axiom should just work'. Tim _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
