On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:51:39 CDT David Engel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Note: I'm copying this to debian-devel to get feedback on my response > to Philippe's question #3. If you do respond, please include a direct > response to me in addition to the list. I was inadvertantly dropped > from debian-devel three weeks ago and no amount of trying on my or > Bruce's parts has been able to get me back on the list.
Can anyone put me on the list too ? In the meantime can you post followups to my address as well as the list, please... > Philippe Troin writes: > > 1) When compiling (make -f debian.rules) Tcl (needed to build tclX, > > what a shame that you need the tcl/tk source tree), I have errors > > in tclPosixStr.c about a case having same value (EDEADLOCK and > > EDEADLK are both defined and have the same value). Fixed by adding > > an #if EDEADLOCK != EDEADLK. > > Did you recompile it lately ? > > I'm aware of the problem, but haven't had time to fix it yet. It's a two lines fix actually. BTW, Tcl 7.4 has the same problem. > > 2) I've tried to 'make test' in both tcl7.5 and tk4.1 source trees, > > both failed. Shouldn't we report this to the Tcl/Tk maintainers > > and/or try to fix it ? This works perfectly on other systems (tried > > Solaris). > > What do you mean by failed? If you mean some individual tests fail, > then that is expected. I believe all of the Tk failures are due to > non-portable tests. I have not had time to look into the Tcl > fileevent failures yet, but I suspect they are either due to > non-portable tests also or libc bugs. Some individual test failed for Tcl 7.5 (one test), Tk 4.1 (3 or 4 tests), TclX 7.5 (4 or 5tests). I'll try to check them out... when I've got time. > > 3) I think I should have tclX be the same (regarding package > > management) and tcl and tk. ie, I will have tclX74 and tclX75, both > > incompatible with tclX. tclX74-dev and tcl75-dev being mutually > > exclusive too... What do you think about it ? > > I agree, for now. One change I'm considering is to give each major > Tcl version it's own include directory (e.g. /usr/include/tcl7.4, > /usr/include/tcl7.5). This would make it easier to have multiple > development packages installed simultaneously. The limitation of only > having one installed at a time is quickly becoming a problem because > of the way Tcl/Tk-based packages are tied to a specific version of > Tcl/Tk. What do you think? I think it's fine. Tcl and Tk will need a little package work, but TclX is already version clean as it's installed in /usr/lib/tclX/<version>. But we'll have to implement /etc/alternatives stuff for the .a and the .so. Do you see any other problem ? > > 4) I plan having a separate tclX7[45]-doc package for the help > > system ( and /usr/bin/tclhelp). What's your > > opinion on that one ? > > I've considered doing something like this with the section 3 manual > pages for Tcl/Tk. The reason I hadn't done it yet is that I didn't > want to create yet another package unless I really needed to or > someone else wanted it. I think keeping the manual pages within the devel package is good. However for TclX, /usr/lib/tclX/7.*/help contains a duplicate of all the man pages formatted differently to be used with tclhelp, hence the new 'doc' package. I must admit I never use this feature myself. But generally, keeping the manpages with the development stuff should be a good thing. Phil.
