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