Hello CHICKEN users,
I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I was attracted
to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module management
system.
I have experienced a few problems with installing some of the eggs though. It
seems that two important eggs (i.e.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Richard,
On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Richard Lewis wrote:
Hello CHICKEN users,
I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I
was attracted
to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module
management
system.
I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would
go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken
2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported
different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would
make packaging Chic
Hello Ivan,
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0500 Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would
> go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken
> 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup support
Thanks for your replies regarding this.
I've just managed to install easyffi by removing the -G option from
easyffi.setup.
But it looks like I'll have to have a go at self-compilation. Being a Debian
user I'm extremely unused to this sort of thing. Wish me luck ;-)
On Thursday 07 December 2006
Well, I am not the maintainer for the Debian Chicken package, so I
don't know. But unless the more recent versions of Chicken depend on
libraries or library versions that are not present in Debian, it's
probably not that difficult. Actually, the real problem here would be
that the Debian relea
On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Zbigniew wrote:
It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for
stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package
and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently "unstable"
from the perspective of Debian stable, since t
You make a good point; actually, I would say that Debian needs to
have a package for each individual egg, so that the developer who
wishes to release Debian packages of their Chicken code can have
precise control over dependencies. But then this means that the egg
repository must match egg versi
We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not
ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming
languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand...
Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thank you. I was just going to mention that. What do D
Ivan Raikov scripsit:
>
>
> We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not
> ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming
> languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand...
Well, Algol (60 and 68) should meet your needs, then, as should PL/
;t be available.
Paulo
- Mensagem original
De: Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: chicken
Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 7 de Dezembro de 2006 17:47:54
Assunto: Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Zbigniew wrote:
> It seems to me that if Debian prov
It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for
stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package
and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently "unstable"
from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly
updated and haven't gone
That's okay, as long as there is the possibility of back-porting
eggs to older versions.
Paulo Jabardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, new eggs wouldn't be available.
>
> Paulo
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http:
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:46:25PM -0800, Paulo Jabardo wrote:
> I think that a simple solution, that would not solve this particular problem
> but might help in the future is to have an egg repository for each version.
> So if someone is using an older version of chicken, the chicken-setup
On 12/8/06, Peter Busser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:46:25PM -0800, Paulo Jabardo wrote:
> I think that a simple solution, that would not solve this particular problem
but might help in the future is to have an egg repository for each version. So if
someone is usi
I was going to say, it would take some effort to backport the
current egg repository to a given older version of Chicken. But I
appreciate the new addition to chicken-setup; and at least I can
create a Chicken 2.3 egg repository for the eggs I use.
-Ivan
"felix winkelmann" <[EMAIL PROT
On 12/8/06, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was going to say, it would take some effort to backport the
current egg repository to a given older version of Chicken. But I
appreciate the new addition to chicken-setup; and at least I can
create a Chicken 2.3 egg repository for the eggs I
Well, it's certainly not going to hurt anybody, and it might be
somewhat useful for future "forking" of the egg repository. Though of
course some eggs might later have bug fixes that don't necessarily
break compatibility with older versions... whatever happened to the
idea of having unit tests
On Dec 8, 2006, at 7:29 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On 12/8/06, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was going to say, it would take some effort to backport the
current egg repository to a given older version of Chicken. But I
appreciate the new addition to chicken-setup; and at least I
ginal
De: felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: chicken-users@nongnu.org
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 8 de Dezembro de 2006 13:29:30
Assunto: Re: Res: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
On 12/8/06, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi!
> We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not
> ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming
> languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand...
Well, that is partially not true anymore. Sun already released two important
components of
21 matches
Mail list logo
