guile-www

guile-www

[Brian S McQueen]

TTN

I ran the latest (something like 2.5) ./configure --prefix=/my/home/dir
and ran the make install.  The make install was trying to install to
"/www/" as if it was not using the --prefix.

Brian McQueen
NAS Division
NASA/Ames


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

Re: guile-www

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

   From: Brian S McQueen <bqueen@nas.nasa.gov>
   Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:29:12 -0800 (PST)

   I ran the latest (something like 2.5) ./configure --prefix=/my/home/dir
   and ran the make install.  The make install was trying to install to
   "/www/" as if it was not using the --prefix.

in the Makefile, installation directory is controlled by $(GUILE_SITE).
it sounds like that variable is not being set properly by the configure
script.  below is a log from a fresh guile-www-2.5.tar.gz build that you
can compare against.  the resulting Makefile has the lines:

  GUILE_SITE = ${prefix}/share/guile/site
  gwwwdir = $(GUILE_SITE)/www

as a workaround, you can probably do:

  make install GUILE_SITE=/my/home/dir/share/guile/site

but it's better if we can find the source of the problem and fix that.
(yes yes, the Real source of the problem is the Programmer, i know. ;-)

thi


____________________________________________________
cd ~/stash/guile-www-2.5/
./configure --prefix=/tmp/z123 && make install
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for gawk... gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no
checking for guile... /home/ttn/local/bin/guile
checking for guile-config... /home/ttn/local/bin/guile-config
checking for guile-tools... /home/ttn/local/bin/guile-tools
checking for Guile site directory... ${prefix}/share/guile/site
checking if (ice-9 regex) is available... yes
checking if (srfi srfi-13) is available... yes
checking if (ice-9 optargs-kw) is available... yes
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating doc/Makefile
config.status: executing twerp-prep commands
Making install in doc
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
nothing to do for doc-index-prep
make  install-am
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
/bin/sh ../mkinstalldirs /tmp/z123/info
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ./guile-www.info /tmp/z123/info/guile-www.info
 install-info --info-dir=/tmp/z123/info /tmp/z123/info/guile-www.info
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5/doc'
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
/bin/sh ./mkinstalldirs /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 cgi.scm /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/cgi.scm
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 http.scm /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/http.scm
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 main.scm /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/main.scm
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 url.scm /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/url.scm
 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 url-coding.scm /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/url-coding.scm
make  install-data-hook
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'
/bin/sh ./mkinstalldirs /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/server-utils
for f in ./server-utils/*.scm ; do g=`basename $f` ;	\
  /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 $f /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/server-utils/$g ; done
/bin/sh ./mkinstalldirs /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/data
for f in ./data/*.scm ; do g=`basename $f` ;	\
  /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 $f /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/data/$g ; done
if [ "no" = yes ] ; then		\
  for f in cgi.scm server-utils/big-dishing-loop.scm ; do				\
    sed s/optargs-kw/optargs/ ./$f > TMP ;	\
    /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 TMP /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www/$f ; done ;		\
  rm -f TMP ; fi
cd /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/www ;						\
for f in *.scm server-utils/*.scm data/*.scm ; do	\
  echo ';;; Copyright (C) 2004 FSF' > TMP ;		\
  /home/ttn/local/bin/guile-tools punify $f >> TMP ; mv TMP $f ; done
if /home/ttn/local/bin/guile-tools | grep -q make-module-catalog ; then	\
   /home/ttn/local/bin/guile-tools make-module-catalog /tmp/z123/share/guile/site ; fi
Updating /tmp/z123/share/guile/site/.module-catalog
 => Done (12 new 0 carried-over 5 ignored).
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ttn/stash/guile-www-2.5'

Compilation finished at Thu Apr  1 09:04:02


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

guile-www

[Brian S McQueen]

I noticed that the guile-www on the guile download page is an old stable
version, 1.1.1.  I was digging around in some TTN directory and I see TTN
is now on version 2.*.  I wonder which we should be using.  I tried using
the latest, and had a few problems, so I went back to the distribution on
the gnu page.

Brian McQueen
NAS Division
NASA/Ames


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

Re: guile-www

[Thamer Al-Harbash]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Brian S McQueen wrote:

> I noticed that the guile-www on the guile download page is an old stable
> version, 1.1.1.  I was digging around in some TTN directory and I see TTN
> is now on version 2.*.  I wonder which we should be using.  I tried using
> the latest, and had a few problems, so I went back to the distribution on
> the gnu page.

TTN will typically maintain packages compatible with his fork and
not the main GNU guile distribution.

I had issues with 1.1.1 I believe and I sent in a small patch. It
was with keyword arguments if I remember correctly.

-- 
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: guile-www

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

   From: Brian S McQueen <bqueen@nas.nasa.gov>
   Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:27:40 -0700 (PDT)

   had a few problems

could you describe these problems, or alternatively
send me and/or post a log of the installation attempt?

thi


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

Re: guile-www

[Chris Hall]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com> writes:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Brian S McQueen wrote:
>
> TTN will typically maintain packages compatible with his fork and
> not the main GNU guile distribution.                 ^^^^^^^^
>

Oh, really?  Could you tell me a bit more about this?

Does this mean I need to check the origin of whatever packages I need to
use?  I've been having problems, similar to what the OP mentioned, but
in guile-pg, though I just installed guile-www-1.1.1 too.

Thx,
+Chris

-- 
If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit
in my name in a Swiss bank.
-- Woody Allen (1935 - )

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

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

The TTN dilemma (was Re: guile-www)

[Thamer Al-Harbash]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Chris Hall wrote:

> Oh, really?  Could you tell me a bit more about this?

Sure. I'm hoping it will solicit a larger response from the guile
community on what can be done about this.

Some time ago, I found that guile-www from the savannah
distribution had a small bug with optional arguments. You can
probably find my patch in the guile-bugs archive. I received two
responses. One from Marius thanking me, and one from TTN saying
something else. Marius also asked TTN to stop representing his
fork as the official one.

Basically if you get modules from TTN they may not work with the
GNU guile distribution, an example is guile-sdl. The response
from TTN is to get the 'other' guile to work with his code and
the response from the guile developers hasn't been vocal enough
for me to understand.

There was an attempt to merge the code bases by someone on the
list. No idea where it went.

My personal opinion on this is that TTN ought to use his
productivity to further guile development and not splinter it
like he's doing now.

Unfortunately the Free Software licenses can only promote
cooperation. They can't force it.

-- 
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://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: The TTN dilemma (was Re: guile-www)

[Chris Hall]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5400 bytes --]

Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com> writes:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Chris Hall wrote:
>
>> Oh, really?  Could you tell me a bit more about this?
>
> Sure. I'm hoping it will solicit a larger response from the guile
> community on what can be done about this.

Thanks for taking the time, I've been very curious about this.

How long has this been going on, roughly speaking?  Is there a thread
somewhere that I could read to catch up on the discussion?

>
> Some time ago, I found that guile-www from the savannah
> distribution had a small bug with optional arguments. You can
> probably find my patch in the guile-bugs archive. I received two
> responses. One from Marius thanking me, and one from TTN saying
> something else. Marius also asked TTN to stop representing his
> fork as the official one.

By 'his fork', do you mean 'his fork' of guile-pg, 'his fork' of
guile-www, etc.?

The little bit I can glean as to the 'why' of the fork from TTN's 'glug'
web page is that 'the fork' was *because* of a backward compatability
issue?

Does anyone else find it ironic (as well as a PITA) that this seems to
have led to many more, but undocumented, incompatabilities?

>
> Basically if you get modules from TTN they may not work with the
> GNU guile distribution, an example is guile-sdl. The response
> from TTN is to get the 'other' guile to work with his code and
> the response from the guile developers hasn't been vocal enough
> for me to understand.

Do the guile-pg-0.19, and perhaps the recent guile-www as well, require
a 'TTN-built' tool chain of some sort?

At least, the guile-pg install - it seemed to build OK - was *totally*
broken - it created directories off the '/' dir instead of where they
were _supposed_ to go, and said they would go, and then couldn't find a
new 'postgres-sup' lib, even though it had just installed it!

From what I can see in the guile-pg-0.19 distribution materials, there
is absolutely no mention of possible imcompatabilites, nor on the web
site where I got the tarball - I just checked again.  There is a _lot_
of install-related stuff, but no mention of incompatability that I could
see.

For me thi install was a _very_ lengthy and _very_ exasperating
experience - I nearly gave up on guile (again) because what good is an
extension language with broken extensions?  How useful are extensions
that it takes longer to install than it would take to write a
'quick-n-dirty' that could then evolve over time?

I am also beginning to get the feeling that ttn is a 'community of one'
- is this correct?

>
> There was an attempt to merge the code bases by someone on the
> list. No idea where it went.
>
> My personal opinion on this is that TTN ought to use his
> productivity to further guile development and not splinter it
> like he's doing now.

I *do* think that it is wonderful that ttn has been so active and is
contributing back - my contributions to the community are pitiful in
comparison.

But what issue is so important that splitting off a fork of a tool that
is by it's very nature meant to be unifying is the best route to take?

Quite frankly, I _do_ find it a bit deceptive to not say right up front
that 'this is not the official GNU/FSF stuff' if in fact it isn't, and I
have to wonder as to why it doesn't.  And at the bottom of the Guile-PG
page it says:

        There is one known bug we can't do anything about (we tried but
        failed): The sourceforge folks don't want to update their site
        to point to the new Guile-PG homepage:

            http://www.glug.org/people/ttn/software/guile-pg/

        But if there are enough links to the new page, perhaps the
        relevancy of sourceforge's obstinance will decline over time.

Could the reason be that the people that actually *registered* the
project and thus have the *rights* to the page at sourceforge didn't see
any reason to change the link?  And again, I am left wondering where the
rest of the 'we' is, unless ttn is using the 'royal we'? ;-)

On the 'index' page for ttn's free software it mentions that several
projects were 'inherited from such-and-so'.

Hmmm.  Does that mean the project originators in some way assigned the
responsibility to ttn?  Or (heaven forbid!)  they passed away and willed
the responsibility to ttn?

My understanding of how these things usually go is that there is some
sort of hand-off done publicly in full 'view' of the community - has
this happened with the 'inherited' projects, I wonder?

>
> Unfortunately the Free Software licenses can only promote
> cooperation. They can't force it.

'Forced co-operation'?  Heh.  Surely you jest?  ;-D

Well, I am getting ready to move, but I have spent so much time on the
whole experience that maybe when I get settled in at the new place I'll
take whatever I like of ttn's guile-pg stuff and see about sending a
diff to the original maintainers.  As long as the API's aren't too
different, it may be the best thing.  Or maybe just update the original
to use the newer postgres headers/libs - that seems to be the issue that
caused me the problems in the first place.

Duplication of effort.  Blehhh.  Too much like work.

Aloha,
+Chris

-- 
There are 10 kinds of people in the world.  Those who understand
binary, and those who don't.
-- Unknown

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

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

Re: The TTN dilemma (was Re: guile-www)

[Thamer Al-Harbash]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Chris Hall wrote:

> Thanks for taking the time, I've been very curious about this.

My worry is that I misrepresent facts and anger people who are
otherwise contributing.

> How long has this been going on, roughly speaking?  Is there a thread
> somewhere that I could read to catch up on the discussion?

Not that I know of. I've seen small spats break out but nothing
to bring this matter to any kind of closure. Then again what kind
of closure can we expect?

> By 'his fork', do you mean 'his fork' of guile-pg, 'his fork' of
> guile-www, etc.?

AFAIK TTN used to work on the official guile. Then he forked his
own code hosted on his site. This includes any bindings he
writes. The problem is he's productive and he doesn't say
outright when making announcements that his code is not
compatible with guile 1.6

> The little bit I can glean as to the 'why' of the fork from TTN's 'glug'
> web page is that 'the fork' was *because* of a backward compatability
> issue?

I'm guessing he didn't like the SCM changes. guile went through
some major changes between 1.4 and 1.6

> Does anyone else find it ironic (as well as a PITA) that this seems to
> have led to many more, but undocumented, incompatabilities?

Absolutely. I actually considered moving to other
interpreters. It's just a bad thing for the community. Seriously,
I'd like to contribute _without_ the politics. The second people
start acting deceptive is the second I lose interest. guile is
good without all the bindings. You can usually roll these as you
go :)

> Do the guile-pg-0.19, and perhaps the recent guile-www as well, require
> a 'TTN-built' tool chain of some sort?

I know his guile-sdl uses a different tool chain. His own.

> At least, the guile-pg install - it seemed to build OK - was *totally*
> broken - it created directories off the '/' dir instead of where they
> were _supposed_ to go, and said they would go, and then couldn't find a
> new 'postgres-sup' lib, even though it had just installed it!

Heh. Sounds like his fork is getting more and more
incompatible. I used guile-pg some six months ago. There was a
version which worked fine with the official guile. The only
problem it had, which I remember, is grokking the inet address
values that pgsql supports. It was a simple fix when I fixed it.

> From what I can see in the guile-pg-0.19 distribution materials, there
> is absolutely no mention of possible imcompatabilites, nor on the web
> site where I got the tarball - I just checked again.  There is a _lot_
> of install-related stuff, but no mention of incompatability that I could
> see.

Nail. Hammer. Head.

> I am also beginning to get the feeling that ttn is a 'community of one'
> - is this correct?

Can't really say. He's been assimilating bindings from people who
abandoned the code and converting them to his guile
distribution. Whether anyone actually uses his fork or not is
another question.

The only way to solve this is to have an effort to take all his
code and make it compatible. It's a lot of effort, and work which
is better spent _doing_ things with guile. Patching someone elses
bindings to be compatible is one massive waste of time. You could
probably re-write most of guile-pg in one night.

Here's a problem though, and I'd love it if someone could tell me
how to solve it. If I wrote a guile-pg, guile-sdl, and a bunch of
other bindings, how do I take the namespace back from TTN?
Writing bindings isn't very hard and I have some spare time this
month.

-- 
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://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: The TTN dilemma (was Re: guile-www)

[Chris Hall]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3567 bytes --]

Thamer Al-Harbash <tmh@whitefang.com> writes:
>
>> The little bit I can glean as to the 'why' of the fork from TTN's 'glug'
>> web page is that 'the fork' was *because* of a backward compatability
>> issue?
>
> I'm guessing he didn't like the SCM changes. guile went through
> some major changes between 1.4 and 1.6

Seems a safe bet - the 'glug' version is at 1.4.1.  I've asked ttn for
clarification - it seems reasonable to me that people know why and how
they are different with out having to examine the code for the
interpreter itself, or some such similar effort.

>
>> Does anyone else find it ironic (as well as a PITA) that this seems to
>> have led to many more, but undocumented, incompatabilities?
>
> Absolutely. I actually considered moving to other
> interpreters. It's just a bad thing for the community. Seriously,
> I'd like to contribute _without_ the politics. The second people
> start acting deceptive is the second I lose interest. guile is
> good without all the bindings. You can usually roll these as you
> go :)
>

I like these comments!  Life is too short and there is too much code
waiting to be written for us to be quibbling about our tools!

Often, one of the greatest attractions of a particular piece of free
software *is* the community using that tool, and my sense is that this
is important to Guile users, and that they are in fact troubled by these
developments.  And conflicted - ttn does some very useful stuff, people
generally agree on that.

Honest, open differences are fine, and normal, and to be expected - but
what is the point if no one knows the substance of, and reasons behind,
the differences?

>
> version which worked fine with the official guile. The only
> problem it had, which I remember, is grokking the inet address
> values that pgsql supports. It was a simple fix when I fixed it.

I've gotten Guile-PG 0.16 working with 1.6.4, with a little help - had
to fiddle with -rpath link setting in the Makefile, nothing major.

>
> Nail. Hammer. Head.

;-) Naaaw - I *love* spending many wasted hours on things that easily
  could have been avoided.

>
> The only way to solve this is to have an effort to take all his
> code and make it compatible. It's a lot of effort, and work which
> is better spent _doing_ things with guile. Patching someone elses
> bindings to be compatible is one massive waste of time. You could
> probably re-write most of guile-pg in one night.

Right, right, right, and right.  But sheesh!

Well, maybe not the _only_ way - see below.

>
> Here's a problem though, and I'd love it if someone could tell me
> how to solve it. If I wrote a guile-pg, guile-sdl, and a bunch of
> other bindings, how do I take the namespace back from TTN?
> Writing bindings isn't very hard and I have some spare time this
> month.

guile-tng-pg?  guile-pg-tng?  the-one-true-guile-pg?
guile-gnu-pg?  gnu-guile-pg?  guile-pg-gnu?  guile-pg-rms?

ttn offered to consider a patch, if I cared to submit one, that would
allow guile-pg 0.19 to build under guile 1.6.  Which got me thinking
(though it is sometimes suggested I best avoid this activity).

So, I've also asked ttn if the incompatibilities are/could be generally
isolated somehow so that the major compatibility issues for guile
extensions could somehow be addressed via build.  You might want to look
at my post in response to his response to my question. :-)

Aloha,
+Chris

-- 
The law is not so much carved in stone as it is written in water,
flowing in and out with the tide.
-- Jeff Melvoin, Northern Exposure, Crime and Punishment, 1992

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

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

Re: The TTN dilemma (was Re: guile-www)

[Chris Hall]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 432 bytes --]

OT: FYI, my GPG fingerprint is in the header X-GPG-Fingerprint.  I saw
this is an Emacs .gnus file somewhere on the net, and thought 'why not'?

I guess that if someone uses header-filtering it might come in handy,
and it seems harmless enough otherwise.

And it seems like an actually _useful_ purpose for an X-header.
Potentially, anyway.

-- 
In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
-- Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 231 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

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