Re: pcl-cvs synching issues
>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
sb>
sb> [1 <text/plain; US-ASCII (7bit)>]
sb> Greg Klanderman <greg(a)alphatech.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
sb>
...
> - The file generic-sc.el is included in the pcl-cvs package but
is
> not actually part of pcl-cvs. I would like our pcl-cvs package to
> mirror the one distributed by Greg Woods (he will fold in our
> changes) so I feel generic-sc should be moved elsewhere.
> Suggestions?
sb>
sb> /dev/null?
sb>
sb> Probably prog-modes is as good a place to put it as any.
/dev/null may not be so bad. I wonder if anyone is using it, and if it
even works in current XEmacs... I see no ChangeLog entries.
> - There are several other .el's that come with pcl-cvs as
> distributed by Greg Woods which are primarily for debugging and
> should not make it into the binkits. I would still like them to
> appear in the srckits and in the repository. Currently we have in
> XEmacs.rules:
sb>
> $(RCOPY) ChangeLog *.el* $(EXTRA_SOURCES)
$(STAGING)/lisp/$(PACKAGE)
sb>
> the "*.el*" part is kinda losing... I'm sending a
patch that
> creates a variable settable from a package makefile. It will
> default to "*.el*" if unset.
sb>
sb> O.K. I think I applied this patch. The `*.el*' is wrong. It should
sb> be `$(ELCS) $(ELCS:.elc=.el) $(MULE_ELCS) $(MULE_ELCS:.elc=.el)'.
you'd need auto-autoloads.el*, custom-load.el*, and _pkg.el too.
i'll send another patch when i see this one applied (it doesn't
look to be there yet)
> - I have tagged our previos pcl-cvs package as
"pcl-cvs-r1-11". I
> am recommending that XEmacs 21.0 distribute this version since there
> is further synching and testing to be done before I'm confident of
> releasing the newer version.
sb>
sb> (We've already discussed offline the dangers of making the
sb> distribution branch a non-default branch and I think the mess is
sb> cleaned up).
sb>
sb> Please don't do this. Please keep development branches off the
sb> mainline so the lisp package builder doesn't have to think to update a
sb> lisp package, or ...
sb>
sb> In terms of formal policy, Oscar Figueiredo has written something up
sb> acceptable to me. Comments?
sb>
sb> Now that we have had package source corruption, it is very important
sb> to get rigid standards in place.
Sorry about the mixup. Oscar's policy looks fine with me... just to
clarify, it doesn't mean I should have made a branch, just set a
"current" tag? Are tags (for pcl-cvs) of the form pcl-cvs-rX.YY
appropriate? It seems you want the package name in there since XEmacs
and all the packages are in the same repository. Or maybe not.
If all have "current" at least we should be good. I'll make a current
tag now.
greg