bug #783: nviz segmentation violation (was [GRASS5] nviz / tcl compile problem)
neteler at itc.it
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:32:40 +0100
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:27:17PM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:28:17PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > >We can offer a convinient package
> > >with the headers, but the base line has to be that this is not GRASS' fault.
> > do you think of providing a tcl/tk binaries package including the
> > additional header file? That's not fully clear to me.
> 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!
> 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 ...
- who is creating this tarball?
- who is maintaining it?
> > 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?
> > You also had to prepare such a package for all the architectures and
> > OSes, right?
> 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.
> > 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?
I don't see the difference... (please speak slowly to me... :-)