Turns out there are two GitHub repos, one by the original author (which contains a bugfix from May) and another by the maintainer of the deb package (who is now no longer maintaining it because he moved to Gentoo, but who says he has some fixes from Fedora which haven't yet been applied). The ideal situation would be that these two coordinate and get all the fixes applied in a single repo (presumably the one belonging to the original author), and that we can then perhaps get distros to adopt the package again. I think the latter is unlikely, though, so I think we should consider maintaining our own package for the sake of convenience. Cheers, Martin On 15-08-09 10:26 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
Sebastian confirms that the reasons were speed (it's C) and the desire to use a second piece of software to broaden the base.
I see rnv has recently been moved to GitHub, and I've written to the person who was the original maintainer of the Ubuntu package to see why it was dropped. I wouldn't mind seeing it back in Ubuntu; failing that I see no reason why we shouldn't build it assuming we're maintaining our own debs, and get the latest (there was a bugfix in May, but no binary release including it).
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-09 03:44 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
It's hard to see what the rnv validation adds to the onvdl validation, since the rnc we are using for the fornmer is generated from the rng used by the latter. Checking up on James Clark's code seems a little presumptuous.
But I suppose the more checks the better was the probable motivation: certainly Sebastian has said in the past that the rnv test was dispensable with : if it's not there the Makefile wont fail.