[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gcl-devel] Re: [Maxima] Requesting input on some possible low-level cha

From: Vadim V. Zhytnikov
Subject: [Gcl-devel] Re: [Maxima] Requesting input on some possible low-level changes
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:50:13 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru-RU; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030630

Vadim V. Zhytnikov ?????:
Camm Maguire writes:


James Amundson <address@hidden> writes:

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 20:11, Camm Maguire wrote:

Greetings, and thanks as always for your feedback.  I cannot reproduce
this with the current 2.6.1 cvs build, recently released as a Debian
package.  (ftp.gnu.org is *still* down, so in the interim, we will be
using cvs and the Debian pool as our means of distribution.  We have
also moved to a linux kernel style release naming convention.  x.y.z,
with y *even* is stable, y odd unstable/development.  So basically
we've renamed the pending 2.5.4, never released, to 2.6.1.)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I updated my cvs checkout the the
Version_2_6_1 branch and the problem I reported went away. That branch
is still a work in progress, correct?

My apologies for the confusion arising from the new numbering
system.  At the request of someu users, we've adopted a 'linux kernel'
style numbering system, with x.y.z and y *even* denoting a stable
release, and y *odd* denoting unstable/development.  Currently, 2.6.1
is our stable release candidate in CVS, and 2.7.0 is unstable CVS
head.  As ftp.gnu.org is still down, I'm releasing binaries of 2.6.1
as Debian packages.  When it becomes available again, we'll cut the
official 2.6.1 tarball.

I have a more fundamental question: should we be building Maxima with
ANSI GCL, or traditional GCL? Of course, the plan has always been to go
with the ANSI branch eventually, but I thought we should wait until it
had stabilized to some degree. Is the ANSI branch ready for production
use? (I apologize if the answer is obvious -- I haven't paid attention
to this issue lately.)

ANSI GCL built maxima 5.9.0 just fine when I packaged the latter some
time ago, and I'd certainly not like to retreat from this.  This
having been said, Paul is currently generating tests faster than I'm
able to look at the compliance issues, though I hope this will change
when I get to focus more intently on ANSI after I finish the current
work on stable.  In other words, the ansi build will be a moving
target for some time.  If you don't need it, it might be prudent to
stay with the traditional build, which we plan on continuing to offer
in any case in the future albeit not as the default.  If you want to
help us debug, then please use ANSI.  Unless you use some really
exotic (IMHO) lisp, the ANSI build should be just fine.  It is
somewhat larger.  Anyway, them's the cards.

Take care,


I just verified that nether 2.5.3 nor 2.6.1 ANSI GCL cannot
build current Maxima CVS (Maxima 5.9.0 is OK) - the problem is
clearly with new maxima defsystem.

Now fixed in Maxima CVS - with-compilation-unit and define-compiler-macro are still missing in ANSI GCL.

     Vadim V. Zhytnikov


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]