-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
SciDAVis 2.9 release #24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Update obsCheck for Leap distros
linguist is not installed
This reverts commit b1529c9.
lupdate clobbering the translations.
Hello Russel, That's quite a lot of work there! What needed patching: In CMakeLists.txt, I moved the GNUInstallDirs include statement right after the project declaration.
CMake at least since version 3.17 expects it to be there, otherwise any path that depends on it is never set. I remember seeing the relevant error message when compiling previous versions, but it never registered, sorry… I also had to revert the change in the qwtplot3d name in 3rdparty/CMakeLists.txt:
With GNUInstallDirs now taken into account, I had to modify the following path variables in libscidavis/CMakeLists.txt:
A couple of questions:
Why does it begin with a NOT? Was PYTHON_SCRIPTDIR supposed to be declared someplace else? I don't see a setting in ~/.config/SciDAVis.conf for example. |
I guess I haven't merged up in a while. It's just such an ornery piece of code, that I'd run out of time before solving the problems, so merge up go forgotten about.
Make sense. When I was doing my PhD, we'd have 18 month upgrade cycle, so that you could rely on your software working for at least half a PhD. But today, we seem to have weekly upgrades :P
This was Andrew Ammerlaan's change: " 3rdparty/CMakeLists.txt: find qwtplot3d
If you use the submodules (as I do), there is no problem with either setting.
Again this is Andrew Amerlaan's change: His commit log says: CMakeLists.txt: several fixes
So it sounds like he is not fixed on the value etc. |
The NOT is there to allow overriding the strange |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not very good at reviewing scripts & cmake files. looks good to me anyway.
In Fedora (and the rest of the family) we've been using a macro (%{python3_sitearch}), which on my F35 x86_64 system evaluates to: At least OpenSUSE and friends also use separate paths for 32- and 64-bit. See https://docs.python.org/3/library/sys.html#sys.platlibdir |
Now that I have time to spare again, I 've been using this code base for the last couple of days and I haven't hit any regressions, so I am going to merge, considering there are some fixes which are required downstream. |
Thanks Alex. Actually, there is one major regression which affects MacOSX builds. Its the reason I haven't released binaries for 2.9. |
I wanted to create a 2.9.0 tag, but in the process I also made a release, which I deleted immediately afterwards. |
Creating a tag automatically creates a release.
Unless we formalise the release process, its probably best if I
continue to do the releases. It gets confusing having multiple
independent release numbering.
OTOH, we could say collectively decide on a state of the master branch
for a 2.X release, and then if I need to do any tweaks to the code to
enable platform builds, bump the 3rd version number (2.X.1, 2.X.2
etc.) and PR those back into master.
I have no objection to informal tags, though (eg
"Alexs-2.9.0-release").
Cheers
…On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 03:58:58PM -0700, alxpl wrote:
I wanted to create a 2.9.0 tag, but in the process I also made a release, which
I deleted immediately afterwards.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.*Message ID: <SciDAVis/
***@***.***>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders ***@***.***
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sorry, I did not mean to overstep. I thought that since you had named the commit "2.9 release" it was ok to tag it to keep track of things. |
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 07:14:43PM -0700, alxpl wrote:
Sorry, I did not mean to overstep. I thought that since you had named the
commit "2.9 release" it was ok to tag it to keep track of things.
Semantic versioning is convenient for packaging as well, but what gets which
version number is entirely up to you.
Didn't the tag go through with the PR? Sounds like a deficiency of git.
…--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders ***@***.***
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No, the last tag was 2.4.0. |
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:46:22AM -0700, alxpl wrote:
No, the last tag was 2.4.0.
It seems I have to push the tags separately, once the PR is
merged. It's going to be easy to forget :(.
"git push --tags upstream"
Ah - the whole release stuff is new since I last looked. In the past,
any tag was a release (you could download a zip or tarball) - that
still applies, but now you can have releases with attached binaries,
which is an attempt to do like SourceForge's file release system.
I think I'll stick with the FRS for now, as its what people are used to.
Cheers
…--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders ***@***.***
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No description provided.