bug #783: nviz segmentation violation (was [GRASS5] nviz / tcl compile problem)

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > If tcl/tk binary packages miss these headers,
> > that is bug on their side. So we tell people:
> > 
> > 	This is a fault of the binary package maintainers!
> 
> agreed.

Okay. We place a big stricker on GRASS with this warning.
This is important or they never fix it. :)

> > Then we can create tarballs for each of the most common
> > tcl/tk binary packages to easily add these headers and tell people:
> > 
> > 	For your convinience we occasionally package
> > 	these missing header files for some tcl/tk binary
> > 	packages as add on package: Check ...
> 
> However:
>  - who is creating this tarball?
>  - who is maintaining it?

Any who volenteers. 
If you think we need to have this to not to loose friends,
you should start to make one.

> > > If yes, it will be another dependency for GRASS as the standard
> > > tcl/tk package delivered on Linux distros would be needed to be replaced.
> > 
> > We should avoid this at any costs.
> 
> But you propose that an additional tarball is needed. Or not?

I propose the tarball.
But it is not a dependency towards the tarball,
but towards the header files thus a correct distribution of tcl/tk.

> > Instead of making them official part of GRASS,
> > we just packages the header files. We would not need to do anything 
> > more than what we would need to do when we add it as official part
> > of GRASS. Because we do no promisse to support all tcl/tk packages,
> > it would save us efforts.
> 
> not really, because you just change the work to maintaining the headers
> tarball. Instead we can also include it (same amount of work for us (me))
> and the users do not have to download this extra tarball.
> If the Tcl/Tk people fix their problem, we stop to fill in new headers.

My experience with Free Software projects tells me:
	It will be more work for us in the end the way you propose it.
	Because:
		* User will mostly think it is our responsibility.
		  And not the tcl/tk people. So they will bug us 
		  not them.

		* We would need to ensure that it is working
		for reasonable number of versions to be fair.
		  If we make convenience packages, we can
	 	  create less and make sure that there is pressure
		  in the right direction.
> 
> > > If we "just" add the missing header files to NVIZ, we are at least
> > > compliant up to tcl/tk8.3. 
> > 
> > This would be flawed by design.
> > To "just" add the missing header we somehow get some sort of
> > responsibility that this works. We also dublicate work and add a
> > workaround for a bug that should be fixed at the cause.
> 
> But generating a new tarball is the same work, or not?

One extra tarball for tcl/tk8.3: Yes.

> I don't see the difference... (please speak slowly to me... :-)

Less people will complain about that it does not work to us,
because they know it is not our fault!
Chances will rise that tcl/tk packagers will fix the problem.
Otherwise it looks like being our fault.

Then we have more time to do the core stuff, 
that only the core team can do. 
The bug-database is big.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20020214/de074caf/attachment.bin