Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

Vadim V. Zhytnikov ?????:
> 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.
> 

Now fixed in Maxima CVS - with-compilation-unit and 
define-compiler-macro are still missing in ANSI GCL.

-- 
      Vadim V. Zhytnikov

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