scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] Packaging proposal: report and questions

To: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] Packaging proposal: report and questions
From: Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch>
Date: Tue Dec 2 07:24:03 2003
Cc: scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

[...]

> I went through the document and it looks very impressive. I hope I
> find the time to apply the installation procedure to scx.
>
> Some minor comments:

[...]

Thanks for your comments, I fixed everything you suggested.

> pkg-def.scm must reside in the current working directory, right?

Currently, yes. But I'm thinking about moving all the
installation-related files to a separate sub-directory, and leave only
the main script "install-pkg" in the top directory. That would clean
up things a bit.

>> The copied file and all directories created by this command have
>>  their permissions set to PERMS which defaults to #o755.
>
> So PERMS is an integer?

Yes. I used an integer because that's what scsh currently uses, but
maybe something more structured would be better. Is this one of the
things you plan to change in scsh 0.7 (i.e. have a real data type for
permissions)?

> I would prefer Scheme 48 instead of Scheme48, because that's
> Richard's and Jonathan's punctation, but see also
> http://mumble.net/s48/.

Fine, I changed that too.

Michel.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>