scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

[Scsh-hackers] Upcoming release of the packaging proposal

To: scsh-hackers scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Scsh-hackers] Upcoming release of the packaging proposal
From: Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch>
Date: Sun Mar 14 06:43:02 2004
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Hi,

Martin and I thought it would be good to try to release the packaging proposal soon, just after scsh 0.6.6 comes out, so that packages using it can be released quickly thereafter too.

So I'm trying to polish the last few things which need to be polished in order to have something releasable, which includes the suggestions made by Daniel Kobras here some time ago. To that end, I just committed a new version of the installation library containing the modifications described below. (None of these are documented right now, but that should change soon).

First of all, I deleted the file "configure.scm", which means that now the installation library requires scsh 0.6.6.

Then, as discussed here previously, all layouts were modified so that the major and minor versions of scsh appear in all paths.

It is now possible for a package to explicitly say which version of the installation library it requires; this is done using the "install-lib-version" extension, which should be given a version, like this:

  (define-package "foo" (1 2) ((install-lib-version (2 3)))
    ...)

This will produce an error if the current version of the installation library is not compatible with version 2.3 (in that case). For now, please require version 1.0 in your package definitions.

I also added a message at the end of a successful installation, which says how SCSH_LIB_DIRS should be set. Here is an example:

  The following scsh package was installed successfully:
    sunet-2.1
  In order to use it, make sure to add the following value
  to the environment variable SCSH_LIB_DIRS (quotes included):
    "/tmp/scsh-modules/0.6"

Finally, I added a way to "turn off" boolean options like --force. When --force (and others) is used alone, the corresponding feature is turned on. But when it's followed by "=no", it's turned off ("=yes" also forces it to be turned on).

So now I'd like to know if someone thinks that something else should absolutely be added or modified to the proposal before making an initial release. And I'd also be very happy if all package authors could test their package(s) with the latest version, to make sure that I didn't break anything.

If no further modifications are requested, expect a release of the packaging proposal one to three days after the release of scsh 0.6.6.

Michel.



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