Hi, I'm sorry, I haven't yet reviewed your package, I'm only commenting on the issues you raised. [...] > It builds these binary packages: > mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter > mosh-doc - reference documentation for Mosh > [...] > > #1. It requires an embedded copy of the Boehm GC. dmoerner previously > attempted to unbundle this and it did work, however a recent change in > Mosh relies on a non-default compile time configuration of the GC, and > also bugfixes which are only present in the CVS version. As such it's > quite impractical to unbundle the GC library at the moment, and the > upstream bug is marked WONTFIX. See: > http://code.google.com/p/mosh-scheme/issues/detail?id=156 > > For reference, I have attempted to build against a libgc using a default > configuration and it breaks badly at runtime. > Given that, according to the discussion in #156, some earlier version had apparently worked fine: couldn't the Debian package simply revert that "optimization" that requires GC_DONT_ADD_BYTE_AT_END? I must state that a package that only works under very specific compile-time settings of an external library makes me shiver. It seems that mosh has no safety checks and the necessity to rely on such low-level optimizations raises questions about the design of this software... > #2. psyntax-mosh requires several Scheme sources to be compiled into a > single 'binary' (which is actually text, but not human-editable). > However, the build script requires a previous version of Mosh. Releases > are distributed with a precompiled version so the users doesn't need an > older version. I asked about this on IRC, and it seems it's > unacceptable to use the precompiled file in the final build, so two > solutions were suggested. One is to initially build using the > precompiled file and then rebuild over the top using the > now-bootstrapped version (The version doesn't necessarily need to be > older.) The other method is to split the source package into two > packages, mosh-bootstrap and mosh, where mosh-bootstrap is > arch-independent and mosh arch-dependent. Neither of these are clean > but that is probably unavoidable. > Well, then, which route did you follow? I don't really see a problem with the rebuild-over-the-top variant, although of course this introduces some complexity. Best regards, Michael
Attachment:
pgp2XH37i3xnh.pgp
Description: PGP signature