Re: RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 09:22 PM 8/22/03 -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
>The first working RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3 is attached.

Hi Liguo,
         I've been trying to add the spec to the cvs tree. My question is,
does it need to include the version number in its name? I wouldn't want to
remove it from cvs and add it again each time we release...


>There are still a lot to improve with this spec file, and I'd like to hear
>some opinions about the following issues:
>     1. It is conventional to separate the dynamic libs, static libs, and
>header files into separate packages. Should we do the same thing here?

As you like it.

>     2. Cppunit is only needed for the test-suite, so should we still make it
>required? Or just drop the test-suite if no cppunit is available?

I would just drop the test-suite.

>     3. The documents for QuantLib is not included in the tar ball right now,
>should I put the docs into the RPM package?

Maybe it might be another package? (or packages?)

>     4. A relative minor point about the name, is quantlib better than
>QuantLib? As the Unix name of the project is quantlib.

As you like it.

Later,
         Luigi

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>This will be a mighty fine release.  BTW, all the Debian packages on all the
>architectures built fine for the golden master from last month:
>
>-- QuantLib itself was built on ten additional architectures by July 29
>    http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=quantlib

Dirk,
         I guess the test-suite wasn't included in the workflow. When the
final tarballs are ready (any day now) could you add a "make check" to the
thing?

Just curious,
                 Luigi

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:

> At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >This will be a mighty fine release.  BTW, all the Debian packages on all
> >the
> >architectures built fine for the golden master from last month:
> >
> >-- QuantLib itself was built on ten additional architectures by July 29
> >   http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=quantlib
>
> Dirk,
>         I guess the test-suite wasn't included in the workflow. When the
> final tarballs are ready (any day now) could you add a "make check" to the
> thing?

Actually, it already does:

test:  test-stamp build
test-stamp: build-stamp
        -$(MAKE) check
        touch test-stamp
[...]
binary-common: build test install
[...]

so test should be visited when a binary is built.  Not sure why it doesn't /
didn't. Will need to check.

Dirk


--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Ferdinando M. Ametrano-2]

>>     4. A relative minor point about the name, is quantlib better than
>>QuantLib? As the Unix name of the project is quantlib.
>
>As you like it.

SourceForge project Unix name had to be lowercase, at least at the time
when the QuantLib project was created


------------
ciao -- Nando

[Ferdinando M. Ametrano-2]

>         I guess the test-suite wasn't included in the workflow. When the
> final tarballs are ready (any day now) could you add a "make check" to
> the thing?

Luigi: we're in synch! Incredible, isn't it?

[I wouldn't even dare to cite "great minds think alike" since it's clear
one of us isn't a great mind :) ]


------------
ciao -- Nando

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 07:09 AM 8/26/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

>Actually, it already does:
>
>test:     test-stamp build
>test-stamp: build-stamp
>         -$(MAKE) check
>         touch test-stamp
>[...]
>binary-common: build test install
>[...]
>
>so test should be visited when a binary is built.  Not sure why it doesn't /
>didn't. Will need to check.

Dirk,
         from the logs, it looks as though the library is build, installed,
removed, and finally tested---so that the test suite doesn't find the
shared library to load. Maybe it should be build, test, install, remove?

Later,
         Luigi

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:09:46AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> > At 09:39 AM 8/23/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Dirk,
> >         I guess the test-suite wasn't included in the workflow. When the
> > final tarballs are ready (any day now) could you add a "make check" to the
> > thing?
[...]
> so test should be visited when a binary is built.  Not sure why it doesn't /
> didn't. Will need to check.

That all works (again) now. For the record, all 62 tests passed on i386.
Thanks to all for writing such an extensive suite of tests -- they will be
fully utilized again with the next upload.

Dirk

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Luigi,

>         I've been trying to add the spec to the cvs tree. My question
> is, does it need to include the version number in its name? I wouldn't
> want to remove it from cvs and add it again each time we release...
I was trying to follow a convention, which obviously doesn't work well here. So,
we don't need to include the version number it its name. Sorry for the trouble.


>> There are still a lot to improve with this spec file, and I'd like to
>> hear
>> some opinions about the following issues:
>>     1. It is conventional to separate the dynamic libs, static libs, and
>> header files into separate packages. Should we do the same thing here?
>
>
> As you like it.
I will update the current RPM spec file first. If there is still time, I will
try to seperate them into different packages.


>>     2. Cppunit is only needed for the test-suite, so should we still
>> make it
>> required? Or just drop the test-suite if no cppunit is available?
>
>
> I would just drop the test-suite.
I will configure the spec file in such way that the test-suite will be dropped
if cppunit is not present.

>>     3. The documents for QuantLib is not included in the tar ball
>> right now,
>> should I put the docs into the RPM package?
>
>
> Maybe it might be another package? (or packages?)
Yes. I will work on the doc package later.

>
>>     4. A relative minor point about the name, is quantlib better than
>> QuantLib? As the Unix name of the project is quantlib.
>
>
> As you like it.
Then, quantlib it is. Somehow, it pleases the eyes. :)

Later.


Liguo