Norman wrote:
> If folk can't type ./configure;make they immediately and automatically
> think the software is wierd/old/quixotic/unstable/unmaintained,
> [snip]
> but the fact that there are so few for an obviously superior library
> should tell us something.
That's not the only reason, but I agree it's a contributing factor.
> If we're meeting face-to-face again soon, we should thrash something
> out then. Does anyone else think this is this urgent?
CVS will be even more important if we don't survive. The whole question
of the building has been a thorn for too long, and I didn't understand
why the rpm baton wasn't carried by Martin.
I certainly feel vulnerable without CVS for CONVERT both for security
and reducing humsan error. I have many packages/libraries I once
supported in CVS already but only include the code to c.1998. However,
this could form the basis for adding the existing stuff quicker. Given
some scripts to automate the procedure, could we not commit and tag
intermediate releases too to give a continuous history, even if some
intermediate versions are lost?
> Overall I think this meeting was even more successful than the IVOA
> one. We participated a _lot_, and have probably made Starlink as well
> known, and well thought-of, internationally as it has ever been.
Yes it was hard not to notice Starlink. That was very encouraging.
It might have helped demonstration attendance had the Starlink area been
near the refreshment tables. The posters made an impact.
> software they should get their paws on as soon as possible. Which is
> why a normal-looking distribution procedure is important, by the way.
(-:
Malcolm
|