Test binaries uploaded. Please test these out.

[Brian T Rice]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nicolas et Ryoko wrote:

> Brian T Rice <water at tunes.org> writes:
>
> The  slate  binary  also depends  on  the  version  of glibc  you  are
> using.   Perhaps  the   binary   package  name   could  reflect   this
> (slate-0.1-x86-glibc21-linux.tar.gz for example).

Thanks. I'll do this.

> I  am running on  x86 Debian  Sid, which  has glibc  2.3.1, and  get a
> relocation error  on __libc_stack_end when  I run the binary  from the
> above   URL:   __libc_stack_end@@GLIBC_2.1   in   this   binary,   but
> __libc_stack_end@@GLIBC_PRIVATE on my machine.
>
> Rebuilding  ecl   with  LSPCFLAGS  set  to  '-I.'   indeed  fixes  the
> compilation  problems  when  filing  in src/build-libs.slate,  as  Lee
> mentioned, so I can now build the slate binary and the libs :D .

Cool. Please send me a copy of your binaries off-list; I'll upload that as
an alternate version.

> > Also, let me know what form of the programmer's manual should be included.
> > I will probably place the contents in doc/progman/ , or I could leave the
> > manual on the web site in its several formats. Which would you prefer?
>
> Netscpape  4.79  (which  I am  using  at  work)  does not  render  the
> slate.tunes.org  pages right:  links  and text  get mingled  together,
> resulting in an unreadable mess.

That browser is a real shame. :P I'm using CSS almost exclusively for
layout, which is probably what the confusion is.

Just so it's clear: is the online copy of the manual itself mangled and
unreadible? What I could do is distribute the HTML version of the manual
without the stylesheet, which would make it render in the default way.

> I  vote for  having the  progman also  locally in  pdf, for  days when
> networks and browsers are not your friends.

Okay, I'll do at least that.

-- 
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
http://tunes.org/~water/