[Top][All Lists]

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

[Axiom-developer] RE: Axiom uses unmodified GCL on Debian?

From: Page, Bill
Subject: [Axiom-developer] RE: Axiom uses unmodified GCL on Debian?
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:35:37 -0500

On Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:33 AM Tim Daly (root) wrote:

> well, the build is proceeding and appears to be progressing
> ok. of course i have no idea WHY it works since there are no
> comments in the patch file. i'll test the graphics and hyperdoc
> in the morning.

Great. It would be nice if Camm had the time to write explicit
documentation for the patch, but I am quite sure that I can
pull his comments from the axiom-devel email list over the last
two years or so that (more or less) fully describe the approach
he is using. Would you like me to send you what I find?

> so code appears in debian 
> with changes that are not in the master source tree
> and is distributed under the name 'axiom'
> and you don't consider that a fork....

I didn't say that. I was under the impression that he was
doing this with your full knowledge. But if you, as the primary
Axiom developer, disapproved of this, then we would have to
consider the debian port a "fork" at least in the sense that
Camm or some other developer would be stuck maintaining it
forever, but of course not in the sense that he is trying to
make it work any differently than it does now under the other
linux environments.

There is a good reason to build Axiom in this particular way
on Debian because Debian policy would not let Axiom to be
built the way we do it now in the current Axiom  distribution.
They are very strict about the way the different packages and
their prerequisites have to be organized in order to be
compatible with the apt-get packaging.
> but patching the original source files of gcl and noweb
> to build axiom (but not a gcl or noweb distro) is considered
> a fork?

I never said patching gcl the way we do in the current Axiom
distribution was a fork since it is being done with the full
knowledge of the gcl developer. Camm is intimately aware of
these changes. They are extensions to gcl and do not affect
the way gcl works any fundamental way. I just think that the
way the build is done on Debian is a superior approach and that
we should adopt it.
> methinks you're being a bit harsh.

Yes, perhaps I am. I should say something apologetic. I guess
I am just feeling rather frustrated lately because progress is
considerably less than I would have liked on several Axiom
"fronts". Meanwhile I still want to get back to actually using
Axiom for research.

> forking is not intended in either case and i'd never claim
> camm is trying to fork axiom. we've had close cooperation
> over many years he's remotely logged onto my main laptop to
> debug the original SELinux failure and we worked together to
> corner an issue of semantics that was killing the axiom
> compiler. i have the greatest respect for him and wouldn't
> consider forking gcl under any circumstances.

I understand and did not mean to imply that. I am sure that
Camm understands this. I think he is just being very very
cautious about suggesting any changes in the way you are doing
things. (And you keep saying: "Advocacy is volunteering" and
so it scares people off ... ;)

I don't know the situation with Norman Ramsey (noweb) but I do
know that we haven't heard anything from him on the axiom-devel
list since he sent the awk filter script some years ago. I think
it is a pity that Axiom (and Tim Daly!) is not more well known
for the commitment to literate programming. But I suppose if
you find the intersection of the set of developers interested
in literate programming with the set of developers interested
in computer algebra, I guess it's not such a big crowd.

> the fact that debian changes are not integrated into the
> axiom source tree is likely due to miscommunication and
> lack of time or lack of understanding, not malicious intent.
> this needs to be fixed, though, as the debian version should
> be buildable from the master sources. i was under the
> impression that they were.

Wow, that is a bit of shock to me since we have been talking
about these differences between the Debian build and the Axiom
distribution for almost two years now. Camm explained, what
seems like ages ago to me, that the Debian policy would not
permit Axiom to be built the way it is done in the current
distribution. I am very glad that you agree that this should
be fixed.

We would also have to fix this in the axiom--windows--1
distribution but I guess we are still planning to merge the
windows specific changes back into axiom--main--1 so that
would probably still be the best way to go. It's been a
year since our first release of Axiom on windows so I
suppose that it is time to put some increased priority on
trying to make that happen. (I mean me and whoever else
would like to help do that... :)

> sending (or resending) patch files that fix the differences
> is usually sufficient.
> if you'll push the noweb changes all the way thru the build
> process and send patch files i'll 'fix' that also.

<sigh> Ok, if no one else steps forward to take this task,
I guess I can do it by this weekend.

Bill Page.

reply via email to

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