Packaging a guile-enabled binary

Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Mike Gran]

I'm putting together a little graphical program whose deliverable
consists of a standard Linux binary (compiled C code) and a single
Guile script.  The binary is the main executable.  The Guile script
contains some configuration information, like a dot file, and some
high-level functions that are called by the C code.  The compiled
binary requires the script to run successfully.

Where's the best place for the Guile script? Best, in this case, means
most foolproof for the the desktop user that is going to download the
program as a pre-compiled package.  Dot file?  In the library?  Is
there a "right" way or a "standard"?

--
Mike Gran




	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Thamer Al-Harbash]

On Sun, 2 May 2004, Mike Gran wrote:

> Where's the best place for the Guile script? Best, in this case, means
> most foolproof for the the desktop user that is going to download the
> program as a pre-compiled package.  Dot file?  In the library?  Is
> there a "right" way or a "standard"?

I'd drop them in /usr/local/share/program-name/foo.scm, but I'm
just following unix convention and I use the auto-tools to make
this user configurable. If your user is going to keep them in
their homedirectori then usually you can create a .prognamerc and
a direcotry .progname for files.

Can you distribute a program linked to guile in binary only? I
just checked guile-1.6.x is under the GPL and not LGPL so I don't
see how this is possible, unless you're meeting some of the other
requirements of the GPL.


-- 
Thamer Al-Harbash
GPG Key fingerprint: D7F3 1E3B F329 8DD5 FAE3  03B1 A663 E359 D686 AA1F


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Mike Gran]

--- Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com> wrote:
> Can you distribute a program linked to guile in binary only? I
> just checked guile-1.6.x is under the GPL and not LGPL so I don't
> see how this is possible, unless you're meeting some of the other
> requirements of the GPL.
> 

Thanks for the info.

When (or if) I finally my little project together, I want to release it
both as source and as precompiled binary.

FWIW, it is legit to use Guile in non-free software.  From the README
of 1.6.4: "The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special
statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software."

So, any patches to Guile itself are to be released according to the
GPL.  But one could deliver a proprietary, precompiled program that
dynamically links to Guile without violating the licence.

-- 
Mike Gran








	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Linas Vepstas]

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:58:24PM -0700, Mike Gran was heard to remark:
> 
> FWIW, it is legit to use Guile in non-free software.  From the README
> of 1.6.4: "The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special
> statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software."
> 
> So, any patches to Guile itself are to be released according to the
> GPL.  But one could deliver a proprietary, precompiled program that
> dynamically links to Guile without violating the licence.

So what's the difference between that and LGPL? 
If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?

--linas

-- 
pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas@linas.org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Linas Vepstas]

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:21:52PM -0700, Mike Gran was heard to remark:
> 
> Where's the best place for the Guile script? Best, in this case, means
> most foolproof for the the desktop user that is going to download the
> program as a pre-compiled package.  Dot file?  In the library?  Is
> there a "right" way or a "standard"?

I beleive that /usr/share/your-app-name  is the right place.
This is where most apps put scripts, glade files, other bits
and pieces that are cpu/arch independent (i.e. don't contain 
cpu-spcific compiled bits), and don't require per-machine 
changes, and are static/unchanging.  This allows clever sysadmins 
to NFS-mount /usr/share read-only on a bunch of clients. 

Yes, theres a standard, FSSTND or something like that, the
'file system heriarchy standard', all major distros including redhat
and suse are now certified as conforming.

--linas

-- 
pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas@linas.org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Mike Gran]

--- Linas Vepstas <linas@linas.org> wrote:
> So what's the difference between that and LGPL? 
> If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?

My guess is this.  The LGPL requires that the work be a library.  Guile
is part library and part stand-alone.






	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Paul Emsley]

On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 21:21, Mike Gran wrote:
> I'm putting together a little graphical program whose deliverable
> consists of a standard Linux binary (compiled C code) and a single
> Guile script.  The binary is the main executable.  The Guile script
> contains some configuration information, like a dot file, and some
> high-level functions that are called by the C code.  The compiled
> binary requires the script to run successfully.
> 
> Where's the best place for the Guile script? Best, in this case, means
> most foolproof for the the desktop user that is going to download the
> program as a pre-compiled package.  Dot file?  In the library?  Is
> there a "right" way or a "standard"?

Presuming you are using GNU Autotools:
I'd use put them in $(pkgdatadir) or $(pkgdatadir)/scheme.
$(pkgdatadir) will expand to something like /usr/local/share/my-prog.

I'd give gcc the extra argument:

	-DPKGDATADIR='"$(pkgdatadir)"' 

so that you can use PKGDATADIR in your c code to (for example) stat the
scheme file (PKGDATADIR is just the directory, of course).

Paul.

p.s. GNU's not Linux.





_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Rob Browning]

linas@linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:

> So what's the difference between that and LGPL? 
> If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?

Good question.  As a matter of fact Guile should be under the LGPL
with the next release.  See NEWS.  Although I'm not sure all the
relevant files have been changed yet.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Good question.  As a matter of fact Guile should be under the LGPL
> with the next release.  See NEWS.  Although I'm not sure all the
> relevant files have been changed yet.

They should have been.  If you spot some that need change, please tell
me.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>
>> Good question.  As a matter of fact Guile should be under the LGPL
>> with the next release.  See NEWS.  Although I'm not sure all the
>> relevant files have been changed yet.
>
> They should have been.  If you spot some that need change, please
> tell me.

Ahh, I was in a hurry and just saw that we still had COPYING in place
without noticing we also have COPYING.LIB.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Ahh, I was in a hurry and just saw that we still had COPYING in place
> without noticing we also have COPYING.LIB.

I guess you know this, but let me take his opportunity to mention that
the presence of COPYING.LIB alone does not signify anything.  (Its
absence would be a bug, tho.)  Each file needs to have a copyright
notice, and we keep these notices short by having them refer to the
file COPYING.LIB.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Marius Vollmer]

linas@linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:

> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:58:24PM -0700, Mike Gran was heard to remark:
>> 
>> FWIW, it is legit to use Guile in non-free software.  From the README
>> of 1.6.4: "The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special
>> statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software."
>> 
>> So, any patches to Guile itself are to be released according to the
>> GPL.  But one could deliver a proprietary, precompiled program that
>> dynamically links to Guile without violating the licence.
>
> So what's the difference between that and LGPL? 

(As far as I know:) The LGPL has the requirement that the
code-using-the-library must be distributed in such a way that the user
can modify the LGPL-library and have the code-that-uses-the-library
use the modified version of the LGPL-library.

The (old) Guile license didn't require this.

> If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?

The next version of Guile will be under the GNU LGPL.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user