#9523: Upgrade the Readline spkg to 6.1
--------------------------------------------------------------+-------------
Reporter: cwitty | Owner:
tbd
Type: defect | Status:
needs_work
Priority: blocker | Milestone:
sage-4.6.1
Component: packages | Keywords:
Author: David Kirkby | Upstream:
N/A
Reviewer: Florent Hivert, Leif Leonhardy, Jeroen Demeyer | Merged:
sage-4.6.1.alpha0
Work_issues: |
--------------------------------------------------------------+-------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:36 drkirkby]:
> Replying to [comment:35 jdemeyer]:
> > Why is {{{patches/shobj-conf}}} under revision control? I believe it
is sufficient for the patch file to be under revision control (but putting
the ''patched'' files also under revision control might be the usual Sage
practice).
>
> It is practice to put both. The argument I've heard for doing this is
that if the only the patch file is under revision control, if a package
gets updated, then the patch is against a version of the source not in the
package. So you need to download the old version.
Well, that's of course b*llsh*t, since the old source code is in the old
spkg you're going to upgrade. But it is long and current practice, as Dave
says.
A more convincing reason is that it is safer to put both under revision
control, since some people might update just the patch and not the patched
file which is copied over. This is easy to see with `hg log`, though one
would also notice that by just looking at the file modification times.
> I'm not totally convinced of the logic myself, but it is standard
practice. (I'd personally rather just see a patch file, and use 'patch'
rather than 'cp', but that is not permitted).
In the light of 1 MB `configure.in` etc. in `patches/` and the Mercurial
repository, I'd also rather have just the patches (diffs) there, i.e.
omitting pre-patched files at all.
This would either require (explicitly) making `patch` a prerequisite
(which is IMHO not a problem), or - perhaps in addition - providing `ed`
patches, with isn't very nice (and complicates reviewing).
> > I don't like {{{"$CC" -flags > /dev/null 2>&1}}} ({{{spkg-install}}}
line 43) for various reasons:
> > * I don't think $CC is supposed to be quoted because people might do
things like CC="gcc -m64"
>
> That would not change the results of the test. I can assure you that
works with and without -m64.
As Jeroen noted, this ''does'' make a difference. I do not even get an
error message:
{{{
#!sh
$ "gcc -m64" --version ; echo $? # equivalent to gcc\ -m64 --version
127
$ gcc -m64 --version ; echo $?
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
0
}}}
I wanted to make a reviewer patch anyway, since we need to also patch the
`pkg-config` file created by freetype to avoid potential trouble with Sage
relocation. (Btw, the term "migration" would be less ambiguous, though it
is used in other contexts as well, but certainly not within Sage.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9523#comment:40>
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.
