On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:01:52AM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
The frontend would also have a list of default installation
locations for each type of file (library, program, etc.). Using these
defaults, the frontend could for example generate the following
installation script:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:11:20 +0200 Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this can be solved automatically (unless we want to
recreate Autotools or CMake) so what is needed is a way to override or
add to existing search paths by passing switches to chicken-setup,
which it then can
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would like to see is a two-tier installation system that
consists of an interpreter for compilation/installation scripts, and a
chicken-setup frontend. The interpreter should know three things:
where to get source
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Jim Ursetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Felix. The behavior below doesn't seem right. An unimported
binding is seen within a module in both compiled and interpreted code.
However a binding (pretty-print) in the extras unit behaves as
expected.
Please try
Hi folks,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:46:33 +0200 felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting question is where to get the meta-information. I
think a good approach would be to have it locally, but not including
the build-instructions. An update command (to chicken-setup or in
William Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think chicken-setup should NOT duplicate functionality that
modern packaging tools provide. Dpkg and portage will always
do a better job at that, and it would be more worthwhile to push
for adoption of eggs
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 8:25 PM, minh thu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No problem, everything is fine.
(But how do I install a local .egg ? chicken-setup complains the .egg
is not in /tmp/chicken-... )
Then, since the somefile.h ships with the library to bind, it makes sense,
to replace
Works great now. Sorry for the delay in feedback, I was out of town
for a couple weeks. I will dive in again shortly.
This module stuff is complicated, isn't it.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Jim Ursetto [EMAIL
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is basically to isolate all of the general procedures for
e.g. installation and compilation, which once written would probably
stay relatively unchanged, and only modify the frontend as
chicken-setup policies
2008/7/15 Shawn Rutledge [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is basically to isolate all of the general procedures for
e.g. installation and compilation, which once written would probably
stay relatively unchanged, and only modify
hi,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:54:30AM -0300, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
Maybe we can do this automagically. We can keep a hash (e.g., md5,
sha) of the repository metadata file. chicken-setup always downloads
the hash file (which is small) and compares with the local copy. If
the
11 matches
Mail list logo
