[Review - Not yet] tcm

[Daniel Boesswetter]

Hi Harold,

1) yes, my changes are very likely to be integrated into the original 
TCM distribution (most are in fact already included there).

2) I created a build script now and rebuilt the source and binary 
packages, available from the usual URLs 
(http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm_cygwin.html)

The latest official TCM source (2.20) already contains lots of my 
changes (#if'ed where necessary). The reason for patch to this source is 
mostly to make it conform to the cygwin packaging-rules (and some 
general bug fixes). The reason for the huge size of the patch (400k) 
was, that the original source is not "clean" (because some 
yacc-generated files are contained in the archive that are removed by 
"make clean"). I changed this manually and the new patch is only 93k

BTW: The binary package has also been available from the TCM download 
page at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~tcm/ since January and now makes 
approx. 30% of all binary downloads!

Best Regards,
Daniel


Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> I just reviewed your tcm package:
>
>> Package: tcm 2.20-1  [2003-01-27]
>> Description: Toolkit for Conceptual Modeling (TCM)
>>    Proposer: Daniel Boesswetter
>>    Proposal: 
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
>>              http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
>>              http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
>>              http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint
>>  Good to go: Charles Wilson (cygwin-apps-thread.11851) (once problems 
>> are addressed)
>>    Problems: So, here's the question for the list.  For the 
>> cygwin-specific README in a X-related package, where should it go? 
>> (cygwin-apps-thread.11851)
>>      Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. Reviewed.
>>    HOLD-UPS: Unresolved minor problems.
>
>
> Questions/Issues
> ================
>
> 1) You have made a lot of changes.  Is there any chance that these 
> patches will be excepted into the upstream tcm package?  I'm a little 
> nervous having this many changes in place that aren't properly #if'd 
> since the next upstream release might not have all of this stuff and 
> the packge will become unmaintained unless you are around to get those 
> patches adapted for the next version.
>
> 2) There is no build script.  I know that packages without build 
> scripts are still allowed, and I used to make them myself since I 
> thought they were really tough... but now they save me so much time 
> that I won't release a package without them and I shy away from 
> reviewing a package that doesn't have one.  If you don't want to make 
> the script, then I could make it for you (after you tell me what you 
> are going to do regarding all the changes in #1).
>
>
> Awaiting your input,
>
> Harold
>
>
>