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

[Camm Maguire]

Thanks Vadim!

"Vadim V. Zhytnikov" <address@hidden> writes:

> Vadim V. Zhytnikov ?????:
> > Camm Maguire writes:
> >
> >> Greetings!
> >>
> >> 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,
> >>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> > 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
> 
>        <address@hidden>
>       <address@hidden>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gcl-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah