On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:31:31 +0100 Michele La Monaca <mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Mario Domenech Goulart > <mario.goul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 01:23:22 +0100 Michele La Monaca >> <mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net> wrote: >> >> Cross-compilation is critical, at least to me, since I need it to use >> Chicken at work. Anyway, I think cross-compilation support is an >> important feature for any project. > > I would sincerly like to have a better understanding of your use case. > But maybe we are already way too OT to continue this discussion in > this thread. Let's discuss it privately or start another thread if you > want to. Where I work we build Linux distributions for different hardware platforms using OpenEmbedded (http://www.openembedded.org), a cross-compilation framework. Some of our products use Chicken. We've developed a Chicken layer that can be plugged into OpenEmbedded (https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-chicken). That layer allows us to easily cross-compile Chicken and eggs. >> You probably are thinking that Chicken is too conservative at accepting >> patches for the core. It may be true, depending on your point of view, >> but there's a good reason for that: we have quite a few developers with >> very limited time using only a small subset of the considerably large >> number of supported platforms (hardware and software). When something >> breaks, there's only a small group of people to expect fixes from. >> >> Some parts of the core are specially critical, and the build system is >> one of them. If something breaks on a platform which is not easily >> available to developers, it can turn into a release blocker, for >> example. >> >> But, please, don't let all that put you down at contributing. > > Don't worry, I am not that kind of person. Even if none of my patches > slip in, I will continue to use chicken and, possibly, contributing. I > think I can recognise good things and chicken is one of them, for > sure. Cool. :-) > Eventually, I might evaluate to mantain a private branch for those > patches I consider valuable to me. Unfortunately, I have another > couple of ideas I want to implement, but I am afraid of the ire of > Jim, Peter and maybe even Felix :) Despite all the conservatism, Chicken developers are quite open to improvements. So, if you have improvement suggestions or bug fixes, please, don't keep them for yourself. :-) >> I see. My main concern is not not autodetecting the platform, but >> misdetecting it. That can be tricky on Windows (and remember: we have >> quite a few people testing on Windows). The detected platform must >> match, for example, the syntax for paths in PREFIX (see section 5 >> "Platform issues" in README). > > You have a point here. Let me propose a compromise: detecting Windows > is easy and bullet-proof. Distinguishing among those Unix-like > flavours might be actually tricky. But once you have detected you are > on Windows you can stop further detection mechanisms and fall-back to > the normal system. Of course you may be more informative in this case > if you want to. For example: > > # make > > Please select your target platform by running one of the following commands: > make PLATFORM=cygwin > make PLATFORM=mingw -> if unsure use this one > make PLATFORM=mingw-msys > > For more information, consult the README file. Sounds good. I'd just replace "if unsure use this one" by "if unsure, be sure, otherwise you'll most certainly screw up PREFIX". :-) Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers