Re: [Emc-developers] Bookworm

[Alec Ari via Emc-developers]

Thank you!!

Alec

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:38:14 PM UTC, Sebastian Kuzminsky 
 wrote: 





On 6/7/23 14:29, Alec Ari via Emc-developers wrote:

> 2.9 branch is still missing any recent Clang fixes, just throwing that out 
> there as a reminder.
> 
> https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/pull/2214/commits


Too bad that was merged into master - our published policy is to merge 
fixes into the oldest active stable branch.



I'll backport it to 2.9.


-- 
Sebastian Kuzminsky



___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Where to put a file?

[Nicklas SB Karlsson]

tis 2023-06-06 klockan 17:25 +0100 skrev andy pugh:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 17:21, Nicklas SB Karlsson  wrote:
> 
> > > However there is a C template (mesa_modbus.c) that is needed, and
> > > I
> > > don't know where that should live. Possibly in /share/ ?
> > In the source tree there other thing live for example
> > src/hal/components is there I added stuff.
> 
> The file is in the source tree in src/hal/drivers/mesa-
> hostmot2/modbus
> 
> However, it needs to exist in the Debian _package_ not just the
> source
> tree, in the same way as halcompile does.
> 
> And to find its way into the package it needs a home in the run-in-
> place tree.
Look there the compiled object or library file end up?



___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Bookworm

[Hans Unzner]

Am 07.06.23 um 17:26 schrieb Sebastian Kuzminsky:

On 6/7/23 06:48, andy pugh wrote:

Is it a problem that we haven't actually released 2.9 and that it is
due to be in Bookworm, which is due to be released very soon indeed?


IMO it would have been better if we released 2.9.0 and got it into 
Bookworm, just because the version number 
(`2.9.0~pre1+git20230208.f1270d6ed7`) looks a bit goofy and 
unprofessional.  Even just `2.9.0~pre2` would have been preferable.


Based on my reading of 
, now that 
Bookworm is in "Full Freeze" we should not upload a new upstream 
release, so i think we're stuck with the big goofy version.


Any bugs we want to fix in the debian.org package will need to be 
fixed in that version of our source code - i assume we'll fix it in 
the "real" 2.9 and cherrypick/backport the fix to a "bookworm" branch 
in our gbp repo (