From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: ASDF for guile (Was Re: guile-lib things) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:48:36 +0100 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20040628134836.GA26342@lark> References: <1088100238.1855.207.camel@localhost> <87acyp7q21.fsf@naia.homelinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1088430914 17792 80.91.224.253 (28 Jun 2004 13:55:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 28 15:55:06 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BewbC-00070I-00 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:55:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bewco-0001RF-GT for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:56:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bewci-0001R5-3I for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bewch-0001Qt-AH for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:56:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bewch-0001Qj-95 for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:56:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [216.166.232.203] (helo=johnson-resources.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1Bewaz-0005i9-2u for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:54:53 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by johnson-resources.com with esmtp; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from wingo by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BewUu-0006rA-00 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:48:36 +0100 Original-To: guile-user@gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87acyp7q21.fsf@naia.homelinux.net> X-Operating-System: Linux lark 2.4.20-1-686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:3290 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:3290 Yo, Just a quick reply, some more will have to come tomorrow... On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Chris Hall wrote: > Andy Wingo writes: >=20 > > I wanted to lay these conflicts out on the table, so that the choices we > > make as distributors/packagers/coders are more coherent (that word > > again!), and so that we can discuss them. Perhaps they are indicative of > > the fundamental problem of guile-lib: it's centralized. Compared to > > something like asdf or CPAN, we're doing too much work. But then unlike > > CL or Perl, Scheme doesn't have a standard module system. Thoughts on >=20 > Sorry - I'm a little confused by the terminology here. >=20 > By "standard module system" do you mean a standard > distribution/build/install system? Isn't that what asdf/CPAN do? No, I mean what guile calls modules, what C calls libraries, what CL calls packages, etc. If that were standardized across all of Scheme, I think we would see a CPAN for scheme. However, in the present situation, any prospective author of a CPAN/asdf/... doesn't have much to work on. If we consider guile to be the target _language_, that's a different situation. > > how to decentralize, or the merits of decentralization, are certainly > > welcome. >=20 > I'd vote for de-centralized, even though each has its pluses and > minuses. Yeah, I'm definitely for decentralized, too. I want it to be easy to code in guile, and a viable source of third-party code is one key factor. So, guile-lib. But they way it is now isn't a model for _the source_ of third party code. A decentralized guile-lib would be more work, of course. (That's why it's centralized now.) If there's enough interest, we could work on specifying and implementing a decentralized system. But I won't implement one on my own without a reasonable idea that other people would be also walking down that same path ;) > On a related note: how feasible would an 'asdf for guile' be? Is there > a need for such a thing? Want to design one? :-) > It seems to me that guile is *more* appropriate than lisp for this sort > of task, since guile is already so integrated to its host OS, Maybe... But in the ideal world, POSIX is just another module. > It does seem that the amazing 'make' facility in use by so many free (as > in speech) packages is overkill for a lot of purposes, never mind the > challenges of doing a good make procedure. For guile-only (no C) > packages especially a version of asdf for guile would seem golden. I would be hesitant to abandon make, personally. (Consider, how could g-wrap or guile-gnome be installed by such a system?) But whatever, that's a detail. > Hmmm. Hmm indeed. Regards, Wingo. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user