[Axiom-developer] noweb patch

[Frederic Lehobey]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 08:06:41PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:
> | On April 8, 2006 5:47 PM Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> | > On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:25:08PM -0400, Bill Page wrote:
> | > > Storing binary files in a source code archive is something that
> | > > I have always objected to, but Tim insists on re-distributing
> | > > code this way. I really think we should stop doing this.
> | > 
> | > Please, provide the relevant patches. This is exactly what needs
> | > the silver branch and what it is intended for.  :-)

> | Indeed. But these two patches will introduce two new dependencies:
> | both gcl and noweb would have to be installed *before* building
> | Axiom. Personally, I don't think that this is a problem. Tim Daly
> | resists. Are there any other opinions?
> 
> I believe we should keep noweb.

Why?

> work for broader linxu distros as much as possible.  I would like to
> see us in a position when we have a build machinery that makes it
> possible to Axiomn with virtually all linux flavours -- not just debian.
> I believe Axiom will gain a lot by doing that.

A `dream' of mine would be to provide also axiom as a kilk
application: http://klik.atekon.de/

> | The second patch was suggested by Norman Ramsey (author of noweb)
> | a couple of years ago. It provides a simple awk script to allow
> | noweb to be used with Axiom pamphlet files without modifications
> | to noweb.
> | 
> | Together these two patches eliminate the need to build noweb and
> | gcl as part of the Axiom build and thus eliminate the need for
> | the corresponding .tgz files in the source code archive.
> 
> That is interesting.  Do you have links to those patches so that we
> can see how we could/should consider them and work out the details
> with Tim?

Camm Maguire's patch can be recovered from there:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/axiom/axiom_20050901-6.diff.gz
(This is a huge patch covering all the diffs needed for packaging
axiom in Debian), see: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/axiom.html).
Maybe there is a better reference.

Norman Ramsey's patch is there:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2005-12/msg00226.html

>From the discussion that followed, what was asked by Tim for inclusion
of this latter patch was proper documentation (which unfortunately I
am not -- yet? -- able to provide).

With respect to Bill questions, the scheme I favor would be:
 * no tar and no patch of external source in the silver branch (it is
for the developpers, isn't it?).  It makes the sources easier to
fetch.
 * keep the noweb and gcl sources in Tim's branch.

Hope for Tim to accept one day a proper solution that do not require
patching gcl nor noweb.  We have first to prove its viability in the
silver branch.

In the meanwhile, provide a conditional build (to be tested in silver
too): if there are locally available and convenient gcl and noweb do
not build them.  Otherwise fall back to the current build.

I think axiom users and newcomers should always be pointed at Tim's
branch (the stable one that builds everywhere!).  The silver branch
should be more experimental and intended at developers (or wannabe
developers).  I do not see the point in weekly versions as suggested
by Gabriel.

Best regards,
Frédéric