#7344: New libjpeg package
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  timdumol     |       Owner:  mabshoff  
       Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  needs_work
   Priority:  major        |   Milestone:            
  Component:  packages     |    Keywords:            
Work_issues:               |      Author:  Tim Dumol 
   Upstream:  N/A          |    Reviewer:            
     Merged:               |  
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------

Comment(by drkirkby):

 I've looked at this, and have attached a revised spkg-install, which is a
 lot simpler. However, there are some odd things about this.

  * Why is the package called libjpeg-7.p1, rather than libjpeg-7 ? The .p0
 is appended when a patch is applied, .p1 is used when a second patch is
 applied. This would therefore imply it's been patched twice, whereas in
 fact it has not.
  * There is no need for a patches directory when there are no patches.
  * What is the purpose of this code

 {{{
 : ${CP=cp}; CP="$CP -f"; export CP
 : ${MV=mv}; MV="$MV -f"; export MV
 : ${RM=rm}; RM="$RM -f"; export RM
 }}}

 I just took the libjpeg source code, then built it with:
 {{{
 $ ./configure --prefix=/tmp
 $ make
 $ make install
 }}}
 and it all went ok, without me having to override 'cp', 'mv' or 'rm'.

  * You would need to get William or someone else to look over the license.
 I know there is one requirement there, which is not a requirement of the
 GPL. That is, if you use their code, you must acknowledge them. Having had
 some GPL'ed code of mine ripped off without acknowledgment, I was a bit
 annoyed, but I've been told there is no requirement to acknowledge anyone
 if you use their GPL code. I am not a lawyer are more interested in the
 technical aspects than license conditions, but someone would need to
 verify this license is compatible.

 In the attacked in spkg-install I've left all the overriding of cp, but I
 don't feel it should be necessary.

 Dave

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7344#comment:11>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.


Reply via email to