scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] First beta version of scsh 0.6.5

To: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] First beta version of scsh 0.6.5
From: Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch>
Date: Sun Oct 26 23:52:23 2003
Cc: scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

> I've just uploaded the first beta version for the 0.6.5 release. It's
> available on 
>
>    ftp://ftp.scsh.net/pub/scsh/0.6/scsh-0.6.5-rc1.tar.gz
>
> Please test and report! 

I've tested some scripts on it, and everything seems to work fine. I
also updated my Fink package to take advantage of the new DESTDIR
option to "make install" and it works great. The problems with scsh
packages for Fink/Debian/... should now be solved.

I found two small typos in file RELEASE, which currently contains the
following line:

   so specify a list of of default scsh library directories. In
   ^^                ^^^^^

the "so" should be replaced by "to" and one of the two "of" should go.

Apart from that, the documentation (file running.tex) should also be
updated, because it still claims the following:

    The \textit{library-directories} list defaults to
    \texttt{("/usr/local/lib/scsh/modules/")}. It will be
    installation-dependent in a later version of scsh.

> I would also like to know if the new --with-lib-dirs-list for
> ./configure is suitable for packaging.

Well, I would say yes, but there are still a few problems to solve
with the packaging of third-party modules (e.g. sunet or the
sunterlib, although they cannot really be called "third-party") in my
opinion. I'll send a separate mail to this list this morning to talk
about these issues.

Thanks for this new version,
Michel.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>