Re: Prism build attempts
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:46:54PM -0700, Ira Kalet wrote:
> I guess I could be considered a LISP expert, though it does not seem so
> to me when I look at the work of the great ones :)
Due to a real lack of "great ones" here on this list you are probably
THE expert. :-)
> If you did, the package would not compile with ACL for the same
> reason...but it would work OK with CLISP then.
Just a wild guess without having any look into the code: What about
creating a separate build tree with symlinks with the extension we need?
Meta question: Isn't it a bug of CLISP if it does not work with the
extensions that are used by other compilers?
> There should be a way to
> rename the files in the install script, but this can't be 100%
> automatic, as the user might have more than one Lisp system
> installed...so which one should the install use?
If we reduce our considerations to a Debian system: How many different
LISP systems which are able to work with the Prism code do we really
have?
> I think it is best for
> the install NOT to do any compiling or binary building, but include
> clear directions for the user, which would include renaming the files
> according to which lisp he/she uses. This is the normal practice with
> Lisp software, until the ANSI standard is revised to say something about
> it.
As an obvioss non-expert I would consider this as totally contrary what
Debian users can expect. On Debian you install a package and once this
is finished you can fire up the programm. This is what our users expect
(recently I was totally confused when I had to deal with a SuSE system
and after installing the apache rpm no apache was running - I felt
totally strange to be forced to call the init.d script.)
So *if* we follow your advise to ship source code only I would
definitely vote for handling everything in a postinst script. If there
would be different LISP compilers available in Debian which could be
used we could ask for the compiler to use in a DebConf question and than
the script should just do its job to make prism ready to run. At least
this is my feeling about this. Discussing this on the Debian Lisp list
with those Debian LISP experts might be useful to clarify how others are
handling this.
> Alternately, I could modify defsystem to be more clever...or write
> some simpler and better code than defsystem...maybe this will be
> reasonable once I reorganize the code into separate modules.
Modularising the code and building packages from this would be
reasonable in any way.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: