Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
INTERCAL bug trackers
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  2 messages - Collapse all
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
ais523  
View profile
 More options Dec 20 2007, 9:25 am
Newsgroups: alt.lang.intercal
From: ais523 <ais...@bham.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Dec 20 2007 9:25 am
Subject: INTERCAL bug trackers
I was very surprised to find out today that Debian has bug trackers
for C-INTERCAL and CLC-INTERCAL, and that they are actually being
used. (I had no knowledge of this previously; this follows on from a
bigger surprise I had the day before when I discovered that Debian
packages C-INTERCAL, and actually maintains it, although I already
knew that CLC-INTERCAL was Debian-packaged.) In case you're wondering,
they are <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?
ordering=normal;archive=1;package=intercal;repeatmerged=1> and <http://
bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?
ordering=normal;archive=1;package=clc-intercal;repeatmerged=1> for C-
INTERCAL and CLC-INTERCAL respectively. (They even seem to have some
use; INTERCAL compilers double up as testbenches for other tools.)

This seems to be a useful resource for finding out more information
about INTERCAL bugs. For instance, I found out independently about C-
INTERCAL bug #273968 (the bug numbers are shared with all other Debian
packages, luckily; INTERCAL may traditionally be buggy, but it isn't
that buggy), and used an entirely different fix.

One possible problem is this, from the Debian Policy Manual: "If an
upstream package has problematic version numbers they should be
converted to a sane form for use in the Version field." Both CLC-
INTERCAL and C-INTERCAL probably qualify as having insane version
numbers under this metric; I see that version 1.26 of C-INTERCAL was
actually numbered 1.26, though, and that seems likely to cause
problems when I release version 0.27 (hopefully coming soon; there are
a few code changes that need to be made, and I also need to finish up
the greatly expanded documentation).

Still, it's nice to see that INTERCAL has caught on in this way, and
that other people are investing the time and effort to look after it.
I have some new names (Joey Hess and Mark W. Eichin for C-INTERCAL,
Mark Brown for CLC-INTERCAL) to learn.
--
ais523


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Claudio Calvelli  
View profile
 More options Dec 20 2007, 9:42 am
Newsgroups: alt.lang.intercal
From: Claudio Calvelli <qwertyu...@asdfghjkl.zxcvbnm.not>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Dec 20 2007 9:42 am
Subject: Re: INTERCAL bug trackers
On 2007-12-20, ais523 <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> One possible problem is this, from the Debian Policy Manual: "If an
> upstream package has problematic version numbers they should be
> converted to a sane form for use in the Version field." Both CLC-
> INTERCAL and C-INTERCAL probably qualify as having insane version
> numbers under this metric; I see that version 1.26 of C-INTERCAL was
> actually numbered 1.26, though, and that seems likely to cause
> problems when I release version 0.27 (hopefully coming soon; there are
> a few code changes that need to be made, and I also need to finish up
> the greatly expanded documentation).

Well, I was discussing this very issue with Mark Brown recently -
just because we happened to be in the same pub at the same time, as one
does. We agreed that C-INTERCAL's version numbers are going to cause
problems to the Debian versioning system. He, of course, has already
found the way around this for CLC-INTERCAL.

I wanted to upload CLC-INTERCAL to CPAN, but I'm finding difficult
to make the version numbers compatible. Well, I have some ideas but
they aren't unusual enough, so I'll accept suggestions.

C

--
The address in the "From" header won't work. Email to "usenet" at "intercal" dot
"dyn-o-saur" dot "com" may or may not reach me, depending on how far it manages
to go through the spam filter, and other conditions which I won't disclose.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google