From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Minimal Guile Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:18 -0500 Message-ID: <87ty4cgt65.fsf@netris.org> References: <1324326921.17612.YahooMailNeo@web37905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1324483391.16920.YahooMailNeo@web37904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87fwfwlavy.fsf@gnu.org> <1325631236.82931.YahooMailNeo@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325640045 309 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 01:20:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 01:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mike Gran Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 02:20:41 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWy-00012c-Db for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:20:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60090 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWx-00020b-U6 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56280) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWv-00020H-03 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWt-0008Ca-PW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:36 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:36221) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWt-0008CO-LS; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:35 -0500 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiFWo-0003kw-1P; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:20:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1325631236.82931.YahooMailNeo@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (Mike Gran's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:53:56 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13253 Archived-At: Mike Gran writes: > The libguile would be modified so that the .iso or .tar file would > never be unpacked.=C2=A0=C2=A0Guile would=C2=A0look inside the .tar or .i= so for the=20 > compiled .go files. What is the advantage of including our own little read-only filesystem, when every OS already provides this functionality? Is it really significantly easier to install 3 files than to install 300? Admittedly, I can see how it might make a psychological difference. Somehow, people get the feeling that a package is huge and bloated when it contains a large directory structure, whereas a single file of the same size (or even larger) seems significantly less obtrusive. However, I'm not sure that this psychological difference is enough to justify the reduced flexibility of such an approach. Is there an advantage that's not merely psychological? Thanks, Mark