Re: Compiled load path issues

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:36, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> Andy: can you comment?  What was the idea behind
>> ‘%load-compiled-path’?
>
> The idea is that given that the compiled files are
> architecture-dependent,

In theory, we could interpret the ‘.go’ cookie and byte-swap things if
needed...

> that they should go in $libdir instead of $datadir.  We can add
> $libdir, but I don't think it's a good idea -- not only for reasons of
> excessive stat, but because I don't think we should be putting
> binaries in with installed source.

By now people may have started to update their packages to run
“guile-tools compile” and install ‘.go’ files, so we really need to get
this issue settled.

I’m in favor of ‘.go’ alongside ‘.scm’: that’s what happens with
.elc/.el and .pyc/.py and it had been the plan from 1.9.0 until
recently.

>> Besides, ‘scm_search_path ()’ was changed incompatibly compared to 1.8
>> in 22f4ee48822db5e30df3abf9a11b6066f2bab9d3.  I’m wary about such
>> incompatibilities and would like it if we could (1) list them, and
>> (2) avoid them unless we really really can’t think of any other way.  In
>> this particular case, do you have an idea on how to avoid it?
>
> I don't really know. I'm sure it could be worked around somehow, but
> it's not very fun work.

It’s not, but there’s a fair amount of not very fun work in this vain to
be done by 2.0.  :-)

I think we must pay close attention to backwards compatibility, at least
to honor long time promises
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2003-02/msg00074.html).

Thanks,
Ludo’.