Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

Camm Maguire writes:

> Greetings!
> 
> James Amundson <amundson@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 20:11, Camm Maguire wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings, and thanks as always for your feedback.  I cannot reproduce
>>>this with the current 2.6.1 cvs build, recently released as a Debian
>>>package.  (ftp.gnu.org is *still* down, so in the interim, we will be
>>>using cvs and the Debian pool as our means of distribution.  We have
>>>also moved to a linux kernel style release naming convention.  x.y.z,
>>>with y *even* is stable, y odd unstable/development.  So basically
>>>we've renamed the pending 2.5.4, never released, to 2.6.1.)
>>
>>Thank you for responding so quickly. I updated my cvs checkout the the
>>Version_2_6_1 branch and the problem I reported went away. That branch
>>is still a work in progress, correct?
>>
> 
> 
> My apologies for the confusion arising from the new numbering
> system.  At the request of someu users, we've adopted a 'linux kernel'
> style numbering system, with x.y.z and y *even* denoting a stable
> release, and y *odd* denoting unstable/development.  Currently, 2.6.1
> is our stable release candidate in CVS, and 2.7.0 is unstable CVS
> head.  As ftp.gnu.org is still down, I'm releasing binaries of 2.6.1
> as Debian packages.  When it becomes available again, we'll cut the
> official 2.6.1 tarball.
> 
> 
>>I have a more fundamental question: should we be building Maxima with
>>ANSI GCL, or traditional GCL? Of course, the plan has always been to go
>>with the ANSI branch eventually, but I thought we should wait until it
>>had stabilized to some degree. Is the ANSI branch ready for production
>>use? (I apologize if the answer is obvious -- I haven't paid attention
>>to this issue lately.)
>>
> 
> 
> ANSI GCL built maxima 5.9.0 just fine when I packaged the latter some
> time ago, and I'd certainly not like to retreat from this.  This
> having been said, Paul is currently generating tests faster than I'm
> able to look at the compliance issues, though I hope this will change
> when I get to focus more intently on ANSI after I finish the current
> work on stable.  In other words, the ansi build will be a moving
> target for some time.  If you don't need it, it might be prudent to
> stay with the traditional build, which we plan on continuing to offer
> in any case in the future albeit not as the default.  If you want to
> help us debug, then please use ANSI.  Unless you use some really
> exotic (IMHO) lisp, the ANSI build should be just fine.  It is
> somewhat larger.  Anyway, them's the cards.
> 
> Take care, 
> 
> 
>>Best,
>>Jim
>>

I just verified that nether 2.5.3 nor 2.6.1 ANSI GCL cannot
build current Maxima CVS (Maxima 5.9.0 is OK) - the problem is
clearly with new maxima defsystem.

-- 
      Vadim V. Zhytnikov

       <vvzhy@mail.ru>
      <vvzhy@netorn.ru>