On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to have a single egg description file that is simply an
alist with make rules, file groups and installation locations. You can
call it .meta or whatever else you like.
Right, ok.
I am not proposing a
That looks good. If we don't want to play with Windows registry and
Unix symlinks, couldn't chicken-setup, when installing a `foo' egg,
pick the highest version and generate a foo.scm containing something
like:
(require-library foo-1.2)
Considering 1.2 is the highest version number for
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 1:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore the code above should be equivalent to
(cond-expand
((not csi) (include QobiScheme))
(else))
(include architectures.scm)
Is that right?
That's right.
If so, maybe stalin.scm should not be implemented this
Hi Felix and folks,
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:14:05 +0200 felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That looks good. If we don't want to play with Windows registry and
Unix symlinks, couldn't chicken-setup, when installing a `foo' egg,
pick the highest version and generate a foo.scm
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Mario Domenech Goulart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that would work. You would also need a file for foo-1, I suppose,
if one wants to to load the highest minor version of 1.XXX. This will
produce lots of little loader-files, though.
Hmmm. I haven't thought
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I have built RPM packages of Chicken for Fedora 9. They are available
for testing at http://www.decom.ufop.br/prof/romildo/rpms/
May I suggest you add a note to this wiki page?
http://chicken.wiki.br/platforms
Thanks!
2008/7/14 felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Mario Domenech Goulart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that would work. You would also need a file for foo-1, I suppose,
if one wants to to load the highest minor version of 1.XXX. This will
produce lots of little
I think he did too. But is you're view of fine-grained a bit 'reversed' ?
Probably.
If you say you want foo-1, and *if* that library is done such that minor
version increases are backward-compatible in the same major number,
isn't it more naturall to request foo-1 and then get the highest
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 02:56:40PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
If you say you want foo-1, and *if* that library is done such that minor
version increases are backward-compatible in the same major number,
isn't it more naturall to request foo-1 and then get the highest minor
number than
Okay, so then let me repeat my previous proposal. As long as we can
agree on something, I can implement some initial prototype that can be
extended until the results are satisfying.
What I would like to see is a two-tier installation system that
consists of an interpreter for
10 matches
Mail list logo
