On Sunday 09 July 2006 17:47, Dan McMahill wrote: > al davis wrote: > > There is a new development snapshot of gnucap available. > > > > > > > > You can get it at: > > Official site: > > http://www.gnucap.org/devel/gnucap-2006-07-08.tar.gz > > Mirrors: > > http://www.geda.seul.org/dist/gnucap-2006-07-08.tar.gz > > cool. I was updating the NetBSD package and ran into 3 minor > things that I'm somewhat puzzled by. > > Did you do anything to the tar file after running 'make > dist'?
This is a transitional release. The tar file was actually made by the old system. The new system didn't work correctly, and rather than taking the time to troubleshoot, I fell back to the old. Actually, I spent quite a bit of time troubleshooting in general. I don't yet fully understand what the issues are. > I'm asking because the man/gnucap-man.dvi file > doesn't seem to be in the tar file but as near as I can tell > from man/Makefile.am, it should be. It wasn't in the old dist file. I consider it to be "non-source" and those who don't have TeX installed can't use it anyway. It is an intermediate file. > The result is 'make > install' fails if I don't have latex installed (the build > system is set up to use latex if found but otherwise issue > warnings and use the .dvi file which ships in the .tar.gz). Maybe that explains some of the behavior I was seeing. The system I use mostly las latex installed. > The second question is if your intention is to not have the > html manual installed with 'make install'. By commenting out > the SUBDIRS= html line in man/Makefile.am, the html manual > doesn't get installed. Whats wierd is by commenting that > out, the html manual shouldn't have even ended up in the > .tar.gz file yet I see it there. As I said, the tar.gz file was made the old way, which does include the html manual. Even though it is non-source, for many users, it is a preferred way to view the docs. Both html and pdf are provided, so you can read the manual right away without building anything. Should this be changed? I wonder, because both of these are non-source. > My last question is really an observation that > test/==/Makefile.in seems to have been generated by a really > old automake (1.4) while all the others are from a modern > (1.9.6) automake. I'm not sure how this one got singled out. So that explains it ...... That whole directory is generated. Same goes for man/html. So, when tinkering, I might remove it then rebuild. The rebuild didn't put in Makefile.am, so Makefile.in wasn't there either, so I put it in manually. > I can try to investigate all of these but don't want to spend > time on it if the .tar.gz file was modified after creation > with 'make dist' or (better yet) 'make distcheck'. As I said, I used the old script. When I make a major change, I try to make sure the new way is fully functional before removing the old one. This means that there is usually a time when both systems are there, and both being maintained. Sometimes, I can make the transition in one snapshot. Sometimes, it may even span major releases. Look at "named-nodes" as an example of one that took much longer than it should have. There was at least one snapshot where I didn't even tell anyone it was there, until somebody tried it. For a while, both were there, and it defaulted to numbers. For a while, both were there, and it defaulted to names. Then the numbers went out and they are always named. For the transitional versions, it wasn't fully working. I have a lot to say about this snapshot. Mostly it is about the new time step control. Prepare for some reading! _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
