Hi there!
I do like version numbers, but there is a "too much" in everything.
What is the deeper benefit of having the version number for xotcl recursively even inside the source-tree?
What actually happens for me is that now I seem to have problems building the code because in 1.0.1 When running xotcl-1.0.1/xotclsh I do find ..../xotcl-1.0 in the auto_path instead of the required/expected .../xotcl-1.0.1.
I haven't yet found out where it goes wrong but it looks like the $VERSION doesn't use the revision counter in some Makefile.
The question is: why all this fuzz?
Didn't anybody else see this occurring, did I mess up anything?
Regards, Adrian Wallaschek
"Just when you think, life can't possible get worse, it suddenly does!" The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy - Douglas Adams
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 16:37, Adrian Wallaschek wrote:
Hi there!
I do like version numbers, but there is a "too much" in everything.
The x.y.z is perfectly well adopted by the OS community. In particular, most of the OS packages follow this major.minor.patch versioning scheme, right?
What is the deeper benefit of having the version number for xotcl recursively even inside the source-tree?
I see none, must admit.
When running xotcl-1.0.1/xotclsh I do find ..../xotcl-1.0 in the auto_path instead of the required/expected .../xotcl-1.0.1.
This is, indeed, a problem which should be fixed.
Cheers, Zoran
Hi Adrian,
you're right. The orginal idea was to provide one XOTcl version that is only XOTcl (the xotcl-1.0.1) on its own and own "full" version with the actiweb packages etc. especially for students and testing purposes; so someone not using actiweb does not have to install all the persistence, xml, web object, etc. stuff just ot use XOTcl; however, since then (to my knowledge) nobody uses the smaller xotcl-only version. We're thinking about removing the version number again. I guess, we try to move to the TEA2 directory naming scheme ....
For you immediate problem: in the makefiles there are variables "PATCHLEVEL" (this is the release level ... "" for 1.0, ".1" for 1.0.1) and FULLVERSION defined, which contain the necessary information. Within XOTcl you can get the patchlevel with "set xotcl:patchlevel":
xotclsh % set xotcl::patchlevel .1
--uwe
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 16:37, Adrian Wallaschek wrote:
Hi there!
I do like version numbers, but there is a "too much" in everything.
What is the deeper benefit of having the version number for xotcl recursively even inside the source-tree?
What actually happens for me is that now I seem to have problems building the code because in 1.0.1 When running xotcl-1.0.1/xotclsh I do find ..../xotcl-1.0 in the auto_path instead of the required/expected .../xotcl-1.0.1.
I haven't yet found out where it goes wrong but it looks like the $VERSION doesn't use the revision counter in some Makefile.
The question is: why all this fuzz?
Didn't anybody else see this occurring, did I mess up anything?
Regards, Adrian Wallaschek
"Just when you think, life can't possible get worse, it suddenly does!" The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy - Douglas Adams
Xotcl mailing list - Xotcl@alice.wu-wien.ac.at http://alice.wu-wien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/xotcl
Just one more comment: if you run Xotcl from its local directory (where you've compiled it), the auto_path points first to the local xotcl directory (containing patchlevels).
In any other case, it points only to the installation directories; here, there is no patchlevel in xotcl's lib directory name (due to Tcl compatibility; Tcl does not install with the patchlevel).
--uwe
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 16:37, Adrian Wallaschek wrote:
Hi there!
I do like version numbers, but there is a "too much" in everything.
What is the deeper benefit of having the version number for xotcl recursively even inside the source-tree?
What actually happens for me is that now I seem to have problems building the code because in 1.0.1 When running xotcl-1.0.1/xotclsh I do find ..../xotcl-1.0 in the auto_path instead of the required/expected .../xotcl-1.0.1.
I haven't yet found out where it goes wrong but it looks like the $VERSION doesn't use the revision counter in some Makefile.
The question is: why all this fuzz?
Didn't anybody else see this occurring, did I mess up anything?
Regards, Adrian Wallaschek
"Just when you think, life can't possible get worse, it suddenly does!" The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy - Douglas Adams
Xotcl mailing list - Xotcl@alice.wu-wien.ac.at http://alice.wu-wien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/xotcl
-
Adrian Wallaschek -
Uwe Zdun -
Zoran Vasiljevic