2008/5/26 John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is there any particular reason why you're building from CVS rather > than from the pre-release tarball on alpha.gnu.org ?
The situation is pretty simple. I thought i'd see if I could contribute to pspp, and the first step is to pull cvs to make sure you're looking at the newest code. > My recollection is that there were two problems. Editing po/Makevars > only solved one of them. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact details. I didn't remove the existing behaviours, so for everyone it worked for before, it should still work. And it appears to work fine for me with the edit to po/Makevars... its surely preferable to not working at all anyway! > The force of my magic is insufficient for this task. > > > This is wrong. Building from the tarball doesn't require gperf. It's > only required when building from a CVS checkout. Therefore, testing > for it in configure is incorrect. Well, quite, hence my comment. Presumably theres some deeper autoconf magic to test for programs needed to rebuild derived sources, but I don't know it. In general, autotools is horrible stuff I try to stay away from. > My opinion is that inserting patches just to make the code compatible > with old versions of libraries is a counterproductive process. I would usually agree with you, however it is also the case that you can make it too hard for people to get the minimum specs for your software. There's a clear trade-off there. Requiring libraries that are too new to have made it into major stable distributions is problematic. > Perhaps however we could publish your patches as seperate items for > people who really want to build against old libraries. But this is a > decision for Ben, who is the pspp maintainer. The only point in sending these patches is that I really don't have the energy to maintain my own patched source tree against cvs in order to contribute. > This is overly complex. You don't need these conditionals. Instead of > #ifndef PSPP_WITH_GTK_2_10_0, you can simply use the GTK_CHECK_VERSION > macro. See > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/gtk-Feature-Test-Macros.html Thanks for the pointer. In my experience, one can either whine or try to offer solutions. It is a little frustrating when you appear to get less credit for trying than you would have for whining. > Maybe it'll be easier for Ben to make a decision, if you provide each > point that you've changed in a seperate patch. You can submit them at > http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?group=pspp if that's easier for you. Not really any point from my perspective, as I outlined above. Ed _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
