Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The basic idea behind all of the previous proposals was to create some > kind of config when a package was installed, such that other Guile > code would be able to find that package automatically. But what if we > do things the other way round? When a package that has dependencies > on other Guile modules is installed, we do some work at install time > to locate the dependencies that the package needs, and save the > results in a config file under the name of the _using_ package. Then > when that package is run, it sets up the environment that it needs by > reading the saved config file. > > I have no idea how to do this yet, but is it a good idea in principle? Yes, but I think that's (almost) a different issue. I think it solves the issue of finding the right dependency, not that of finding the right module. IOW, it's similar to Libtool's `.la' files (which include information about a library's dependencies), not to /etc/ld.so.conf . Speaking of that, the analogy of `ld.so.conf' would be something along the lines of what you originally proposed[0]: storing the initial value of `%load-path' somewhere in a file (or bunch of file -- the `init.d' approach[1]), instead of having it hard-wired. The `init.d' approach was ruled out because of the increased startup time[2]. However, the single file approach had been considered unpractical because it is harder to add/remove directories from there, and to keep track of which packages exactly relied on it[1]. So, what if we just went ahead with the `init.d' approach, except that each file would only contain a single Scheme string? This constraint is critical to address the startup time concern. Or what about a single init file (again without any code, only data), somewhat enhanced to keep track of which package rely on a each particular load path: ((guile-gnome . "/opt/guile-gnome/") (guile-chbouib . "/usr/local/share/guile-chbouib") ... ) I'm sorry for getting back to this kind of proposal, but I think I'm getting confused. Since the discussion spanned over several months, summarizing the key arguments seems important at this point. Thanks, Ludovic. [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-10/msg00036.html [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-10/msg00109.html [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2005-12/msg00000.html _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
