Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch> writes:
> Le 11 déc. 03, à 15:43, David Frese a écrit :
>> I'm currently working an a installation-script for SCX, which contains
>> C-Code and an optional support for the Xft library. I changed the
>> script of Michel, so that the user can activate the optional part on
>> the command-line, and that the pkg-def has access to the dry-run?
>> variable, to make the C configuration and compilation 'dry', too.
> These are good ideas, thanks a lot!
> As I had said, I have now a new version of the installation library
> which uses the layouts introduced in my previous mail. I therefore
> took your modifications and merged them in the current version of the
> library. I also added the "--layout-to" option that Anthony
> requested. I will put all that on my web page this week-end, once I
> have tested it at least a little.
> In the process of incorporating your code in the new version of the
> installation library, I also changed a few things, I hope you won't
> mind. These changes are purely internal, nothing visible to the user.
> By the way, I think that now that other people start hacking this
> library, it would be nice to start using CVS. Martin, would it be ok
> for you to have a module in scsh's repository on SourceForge to store
> the proposal and the code related to it?
Sure, feel free to organize everything according to your needs.
>> The optional parts can be specified in an additional field in the
>> package-definition, which is an associtation list, that could be used
>> for more things.
> Great. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder whether we should not use this
> association list technique for the whole package definition, as this
> makes things more extensible. Something like:
> `((name . "sunet")
> (version . (2 0))
> (install-thunk ,(lambda () ...))))
> This syntax is more verbose than the current one, but more
> extensible. Any opinions?
Fine with me. However, I think having the name and the version at a
separate place right at the beginning is more descriptive.