Re:

Posted by Dirk Eddelbuettel on Dec 11, 2001; 7:16am
URL: http://quantlib.414.s1.nabble.com/Re-tp9964p9965.html

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:59:59PM +0100, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> At 03:05 PM 12/11/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >[ Sorry, resending, headers were mangled --edd ]
> They're still mangled. I don't think quantlib-dev will receive the message.

Oh boy. My success rate at these between-bed-and-morning-shower emails is
terrible. I should rethink this approach.

> I append Dirk's message below (you may want to read his message before my
> reply ;-)
>
> >new versions of -quantlib and -ruby
> >are going into the archive in 7 hours.
> No -python? Why rebuilding -quantlib?

Sorry, typo:  -python and -ruby, of course.

> >Shall we do it one arch at a time?
> do you mean -quantlib and -ruby before, -python later?

No, sorry, build architecture. As it will typically involve getting an
account and doing some digging, it's best to do it one at a time.

Let's start with Alpha, and let's see if the other fall in line.  I'm all
for concentrating on meaningful archs (alpha, sparc, ia64, s390, ...)

> >  I am still open to even preventing builds
> >on some of the less useful archs (arm, m68k, mips, mipsel) but maybe that
> >should be the very last resort.
> If 0.1.9 compiled on those platform I would try with 0.2.1

Fair point.

> >Don't we have a few weeks left before 0.3.0?
> I _hope_ 0.3.0 will get out late January. Given past experiences this could
> mean late February

Ok. I am sure we can sort the portability issues out before then. Would be
nice to cover seven, eight, nine, ... of the twelve available architectures
[ some have currently somewhat-broken toolchains (hppa), some have fewer
available machines (arm, m68k) so hitting all of them is not very likely ]

Dirk

--
Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.
                                                            -- F. Brooks