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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6910a60904100209l54b238dbuf56b10251364fc99@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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/