www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
Date: | Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:12:03 -0500 |
From: | "Patrick R. Michaud" <pmichaud AT pobox DOT com> |
To: | Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at> |
Cc: | Michael Schroeder <mls AT suse DOT de>, parrot-dev AT lists DOT parrot DOT org, |
cygwin AT cygwin DOT com | |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] rakudo Re: Parrot packaging problems |
Message-ID: | <20090410161203.GA6883@pmichaud.com> |
References: | <20090408101541 DOT GA6404 AT suse DOT de> <49DCEC65 DOT 4000400 AT x-ray DOT at> <20090409102012 DOT GD1506 AT suse DOT de> <49DE45E6 DOT 5030508 AT x-ray DOT at> <20090409212923 DOT GA10858 AT pmichaud DOT com> <6910a60904100209l54b238dbuf56b10251364fc99 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <6910a60904100209l54b238dbuf56b10251364fc99@mail.gmail.com> |
User-Agent: | Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Unsubscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: > leading to /usr/share/doc/rakudo-2009 and not rakudo-2009-03. > I might be tempted to use rakudo-200903 as package name. We can change the releases to be the 200903 form if that's=20 much better. But I personally much prefer the 2009-03 form ("2009-03" is an ISO standard date form, whereas "200903" isn't). > > One question I have though... why exactly do we need a separate > > installable_perl6 target? =A0What does the --install option to pbc_to_e= xe > > do that is different from a normal pbc_to_exe run? >=20 > --install links to install_config.o in contrast to parrot_config.o, > so we use the config hash from the installed parrot, with the correct > library paths. For some reason that doesn't sound quite right to me. When converting rakudo to an executable, the pbc2exe we use should already know=20 if it's being run using an installed parrot or some other parrot=20 (because pbc2exe is itself a parrot application). So we shouldn't have to pass an explicit flag to it -- we should simply get the correct perl6 executable based on whatever pbc2exe was run. > I also get lots of spectest failures of 2009-03 with parrot-1.0.0. > See http://code.google.com/p/cygwin-rurban/source/browse/#svn/trunk/relea= se/parrot/CYGWIN-PATCHES/rakudo-2009-03-1-check.log.gz >=20 > I assume 2009-03 is targetting a newer parrot than 1.0.0, > which is unfortunate for a quasi perl6-1.0 release. The 2009-03 release targets parrot 1.0.0. What you're probably seeing is that the spectests (which are outside of the release tarball) have changed since the release. So, I guess we may want to (a) include a copy of the current spectests at the time of the=20 release in the tarball (and change the 'make spectest' target to use those) or (b) change the Makefile in the release so that it=20 always checks out the spectests that were in effect at the time=20 of the release.=20=20 Pm -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |