Opened 11 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#3297 closed enhancement (invalid)

[with proto spkg, needs review, waiting on upstream] Make cddlib produce a shared library

Reported by: fbissey Owned by: mabshoff
Priority: minor Milestone: sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
Component: packages: standard Keywords: editor_mabshoff
Cc: Merged in:
Authors: Reviewers: François Bissey
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description

Tim Abbott made a patch to get cddlib to use libtools and easily produce a shared library. Packaging the change for sage means not only patching several Makefile.am file but also adding a file ltmain.sh and regenerating configure.in, configure, aclocal.m4 and several Makefile.in. I attach a tarball containing an updated patch folder and also a patch to spkg-install to use it. The new spkg-install only build shared libraries.

Attachments (2)

patches.tar.gz (268.9 KB) - added by fbissey 11 years ago.
new patch folder
spkg-install.patch (484 bytes) - added by fbissey 11 years ago.
patch to spkg-install

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (21)

Changed 11 years ago by fbissey

new patch folder

Changed 11 years ago by fbissey

patch to spkg-install

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by mabshoff

  • Milestone set to sage-3.0.3
  • Summary changed from Make ccdlib produce a shared library to [with proto spkg, needs review] Make ccdlib produce a shared library

We should update to the latest cddlib release while we are at it. I see no point in sticking all those files in patches into the mercurial repo since that means checking in 1.3MB of files that will be removed in the next upstream release anyway.

Please do not attach tar.gz archives to trac ticket since a bug prevents the download the easy way, i.e. just follow the link and you will see.

Cheers,

Michael

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by mabshoff

I just checked and there are other conflicting changes to cddlib-0.94f. So I would greatly prefer for this to go upstream before we merge it back into Sage. The author of cddlib seems to be quite responsive, so let's try that route first.

Cheers,

Michael

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by fbissey

OK I have a small patch against 0.94f somewhere, not a big change compared to 0.94b but of course everything has to be regenerated which is upstream job anyway. I'll see what I can do.

Cheers, Francois

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by fbissey

Sent an email upstream with a libtool patch against 0.94f.

Francois

comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by craigcitro

  • Keywords editor_mabshoff added

comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by craigcitro

  • Summary changed from [with proto spkg, needs review] Make ccdlib produce a shared library to [with proto spkg, needs review] Make cddlib produce a shared library

comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by mabshoff

  • Summary changed from [with proto spkg, needs review] Make cddlib produce a shared library to [with proto spkg, needs review, waiting on upstream] Make cddlib produce a shared library

comment:8 follow-up: Changed 11 years ago by mabshoff

Tim,

the latest upstream release is cddlib-094f - did those patches get merged?

Cheers,

Michael

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 11 years ago by fbissey

Hi Micheal,

the latest upstream release was already 094f when I filled the bug. I sent a patch against 094f upstream but never got an answer.

Francois

comment:10 follow-up: Changed 11 years ago by was

What's up with this? It has been in limbo for 3 months! Somebody do something.

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 11 years ago by mabshoff

Replying to was:

What's up with this? It has been in limbo for 3 months! Somebody do something.

Upstream is unresponsive. I don't see the point to copy over a massive amount of changes making the spkg at least twice as large. This is also purely a Debian thing, but we could just ship in place modified sources with instructions on how to get from upstream to this. Once upstream updates (if ever) we could sync.

Cheers,

Michael

comment:12 Changed 11 years ago by was

Upstream is unresponsive. I don't see the point to copy over a massive amount of changes making the spkg at least twice as large. This is also purely a Debian thing, but we could just ship in place modified sources with instructions on how to get from upstream to this. Once upstream updates (if ever) we could sync.

I don't get the sense of any precise plan here, and I'm tempted to close this as invalid? Thoughts?

comment:13 follow-up: Changed 11 years ago by sbarthelemy

Here a new cddlib spkg, based on the current 094b.p3

I...

  • packaged upstream version 0.94f
  • removed some temporary files
  • adapted the allfaces.c patch
  • updated the SPKG changelog
  • did not update de dist/debian directory
  • did not integrate #3297 nor #3304
  • did not commit anything into the .hg repository

comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 11 years ago by sbarthelemy

Replying to sbarthelemy:

Here a new cddlib spkg, based on the current 094b.p3

I just discovered #1619 which is the proper place for my comment. I copied it there. Sorry for the noise.

comment:15 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by mhampton

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

I think #1619 removes some of the issues here, and so these patches would need to be rebased at least. Someone might want to revive working on converting this to a shared library, so I don't think it should be closed, but I am changing it to needs work.

comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Replying to mhampton:

I think #1619 removes some of the issues here, and so these patches would need to be rebased at least. Someone might want to revive working on converting this to a shared library, so I don't think it should be closed, but I am changing it to needs work.

OK I had done some of the work against 0.94f already but I guess skpg-install at least will need to be rebased. I will look at it later today.

comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by fbissey

Took me longer than expected to get around this. It is a big patch when you include all the necessary regenerated files. Is it OK to attach it compressed (241K compressed, 1.1M uncompressed). Also do we disable the static library or do we build both?

comment:18 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Milestone changed from sage-4.6.2 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
  • Report Upstream set to N/A
  • Reviewers set to François Bissey
  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

François Bissey wrote on sage-devel:

Just looked at SPKG.txt. #3297 has been supplanted in many ways so it should be closed.

comment:19 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.