[email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > John J Foerch <[email protected]> skribis: > >> [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> I don't have enough experience with guix to give definite advice on >> this, but chicken does present a couple of unique issues. I think that >> having gcc available is essential to chicken's purpose, as one is not >> likely to only use the interpreter. Installing extensions requires C >> compilation, and if one is not installing extensions and not using >> chicken's compiler, then one might as well be using any old scheme off >> the street ;-) > > Right, makes sense. :-) > >> If the gcc-toolchain were kept in reference (but not in the profile), >> that may be enough. The chicken compiler has options (and/or >> environment variables) to use another gcc if desired, so people who want >> to use another gcc than the one used to build chicken can still do so. > > OK. Then I guess we should adjust our ‘chicken’ package so that it > hard-codes the absolute file name of ‘gcc’ and ‘ld’. Would you like to > give it a try? >
Sure! >> Some chicken extensions install executable programs (for example >> hyde). On other OSes they would normally be installed to >> /usr/local/bin. Obviously this would be different for guix. > > This part doesn’t sound Guix-dependent. It’s more about whether > non-root users can install to, say, ~/.local, or whether only root can > install (to /usr/local/bin or similar.) WDYT? > Sorry, I don't really understand the issues at hand well enough yet to comment. I have been looking at 'guix import', as I said in my other message, and I now wonder if a package importer is the best way forward, in accordance with the guix spirit. -- John Foerch
