[cl-debian] cl-ucw ?

[Luca Capello]

Hello!

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:44:12 +0200, Erick Ivaan Lopez Carreon wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 23:43 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>> The question was already asked different times, or, better, I wrote
>> sporadic updates about it, the last one in this thread [1].
>
> I am updating my Debian (.deb) based installation of UCW, and the
> list of dependencies you mention on [1] has been increased, however
> seems almost all the dependencies already exists as .deb packages,
> except cl-l10n.

You're quite right: the two missing dependencies are cl-l10n (not yet
ITPed) and rfc2109 (ITP #359348 [2], rejected the first time because
rfc2109.lisp contains the RFC2109, in part RFC2608 and the Netscape
cookie specifications, I need to prepare a -dfsg package).

Apart from that, there's rfc2388, of which we all know the status
(read below).

> -- arnesi|cl-arnesi |1:20060513-1| this is really arnesi_dev of
> bese, right Luca?

Yes, it needs an update.

> -- parenscript| cl-parenscript |1:20060513-1| Is this the
> parenscript ucw version?? (i think yes but pls confirm)

Yes, when I packaged parenscript, I discussed with Marco about which
version should be considered as the upstream one and it's the UCW one.
Obviously, it needs an update, too.

> rfc2388|cl-rfc2388|1.1-3| Is this the rfc2388 ucw version?? (i think
> yes but pls confirm)

No, this is the original Janis Dzerins's version.  The UCW version
should be merged back or Janis' one should be abandoned.

> detachtty | detachtty|9|Is this the detachtty ucw version??

This is not the UCW version: at the Debian detachtty BTS [3], there
are already the patches included in the UCW version, but the upstream
author (also the Debian maintainer) hasn't included them yet.  This is
not a big problem, anyway, because most of the ucwctl infrastructure
works nicely with detachtty-9.  I'll try to ping the maintainer for
them.

> If, some pacakges on the Debian archive are not the right ones to
> get UCW working, which ones i need to install instead from where? (I
> suspect from bese/ucw repository mainly right?)

Well, if you follow the darcs UCW version, you need all the latest
checkouts.

My idea about UCW (and the related packages) is to provide a monthly
snapshot (maybe every two months?), being sure that installing UCW on
a clean sid environment ends up in a working example suite (I think
this is what the package should assure).  As I wrote in my previous
mail, I was slow down by other projects, so I didn't provide the last
month snapshot for the already present packages.

>> I was a bit busy with other Debian stuff, so my efforts on UCW
>> weren't enough.
>> 
>
> stumpwm?? I plan to give it a try as soon as posible

Not really StumpWM, but mainly the Debian NM process.

>> The major problem is still rfc2388: the best thing will be to merge
[...]
>
> What about two packages until the merge happens?
> cl-rfc2388
> cl-rfc2388-ucw

This could be a possibility, but as the not-UCW version hasn't been
updated since a while, I guess that the UCW version should supersede
the not-UCW one.

> Today i was unable to get UCW working using .deb packages and asdf
> instalation for cl-l10n :(
[...]
> Do you think the .deb are a bit old to work with current ucw_dev
> from darcs repo?

Yes, for sure :-(

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

[1] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/2006-March/001113.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359348
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/detachtty
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/attachments/20060720/4b3c6e0c/attachment.sig>