From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lynn Winebarger Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Adding stuff to the core distro (was Re: Infix syntax) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:24:04 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <02101017240400.07034@locke.free-expression.org> References: <87u1jub4lh.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1034288993 6138 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2002 22:29:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Neil Jerram , guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17zloU-0001a9-00 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:29:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zloq-00060P-00; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:30:12 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zloF-0005Ya-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:29:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zloD-0005Wq-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:29:34 -0400 Original-Received: from plounts.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.73]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zloC-0005VS-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:29:32 -0400 Original-Received: from stjoseph.uits.indiana.edu (stjoseph.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.78]) by plounts.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id g9AMTIL8000181; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:29:18 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from locke.free-expression.org (dial-117-157.dial.indiana.edu [156.56.117.157]) by stjoseph.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1/IUPO) with SMTP id g9AMTGRL023382; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:29:17 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Rob Browning , Daniel Skarda <0rfelyus@ucw.cz> X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] In-Reply-To: <87u1jub4lh.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1525 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1525 On Thursday 10 October 2002 12:12, Rob Browning wrote: > Daniel Skarda <0rfelyus@ucw.cz> writes: > > > I my opinion, breaking guile into small (orthogonal) packages is > > nice from "pure" developer's view, but it fails in "real world" and > > builds unnecessary walls between Guile and Joe Average Programmer, > > who wants to evaluate Guile: > > I wouldn't propose that we break guile up into a "maze of twisty > packages", but I do think that long-term, maintaining some divisions > may make sense. I'm not even sure we necessarily need to do anything > wrt to guile-core as it stands -- for the most part, I'm interested in > what we might do going forward. > > IMO whether or not we break up the *source-tree* is a different > question from what we do at install time, and what policies we adopt > wrt interdependencies inside and outside guile-core. For example, we > might decide to have a very large source tree that by default installs > everything, but can also just install parts of itself. Maybe X is the real example of this "throw everything into one big honkin' pot and pray" approach. What a beast it is, too. Regardless of how guile is packaged to the end user (and that's not really J. guile hacker's job in many respects), more code barriers are better. Keeping the trees separate is a proactive measure for preventing code incest. So to speak. Lynn _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel