On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:43:43AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:00:21PM -0500, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:42:50PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I don't have loads of time either now, except in the week-ends.
I can certainly understand that. I just mean that, as upstream
maintainer of Sunterlib, I'd be happy to do what is necessary to
accommodate Debian if you are interested in packaging.
> Do you have a JabberID (http://www.jabber.org/)?
> > Debian's policy will create some troubles for scripts that look in
> > /usr/local/lib to find packages, since Debian can't populate
> > /usr/local/lib.
> We can change these scripts to look in /usr/lib *and* /usr/local/lib,
> and create an empty directory in /usr/local/lib to populate
I mean the user's scripts.
> > Clean separation of the libraries from the system for distribution,
> > and clean integration of separately distributed libraries into an
> > installation -- these are the bane of Lisp!
> The merriam-webster defines "bane" as something bad, "a source of harm
> or ruin". So, you think that Lisp shouldn't have this?
Ok, you caught me in some bad English, let's say that "failure to
address these issues has been the bane of Lisp".
> Or maybe you are referring to something I don't know. Did the Lisp
> community die trying to achieve these goals? Have they designed a
> monster to achieve these goals, that destroyed the beauty of Lisp?
> > I started Sunterlib (along with Martin) not because I thought
> > putting all those libraries together was a good idea, but because it
> > seemed like the only workable option -- Sunterlib and Scsh shouldn't
> > be monolithic.
> I'm confused now.
The Scheme48 package system seems to be for internal use only. As far
as I know, if you want to create a program that uses packages from
several libraries you must aggregate them on the outside (the
sunterlib solution), or to use many -lm switches. You'd need one for
each of them and their dependents in the single #! line at the top of
your script. This would get out of control fast if Scheme48 was
popular enough to have many developers contributing independent
libraries. I believe this little issue is responsible for much of the
aggregation among s48/scsh and the related libraries. If I find out
I'm wrong about this, I'll be happy to eat my words.
> Well, hmm, I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me about scsh
> would answer this question on this list.
I hope so to. Isn't anyone who participated in the great licence
change listening? If not, you may have to contact the Scheme48