Autoconf test for site scheme files

Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Mike Gran]

Hi-

I'm setting up the configure.ac and Makefile.in for a project that will
install some guile modules.  The modules have scheme wrappers and load
a shared object file.  The shared object library will go into
/usr/local/lib

Is there a "standard" way to get the site scheme directory? 

At first glance, I would set it as schemedir =
$(datarootdir)/guile/site,
but, if $(datarootdir) is /usr/local/share, then $(schemedir) will be
/usr/local/share/guile/site, which is not in the default %load-path.

One solution would be to make a configure test that runs guile, prints
the %load-path, and then saves the first element in %load-path that
ends in the word "site".  

Or something with `guile-config info pkgdatadir`, I guess.

Thanks,

Mike Gran


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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Greg Troxel]

The hard question is whether you want the site directory in guile's
prefix, or the corresponding place in your prefix, assuming they are
different.  I have tended to use the corresponding place in my prefix,
and then to either add to load path or symlink my subdir into guile's
site directory.


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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Mike Gran]

--- Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:

> The hard question is whether you want the site directory in guile's
> prefix, or the corresponding place in your prefix, assuming they are
> different.  I have tended to use the corresponding place in my
> prefix,
> and then to either add to load path or symlink my subdir into guile's
> site directory.
> 

Making the symlink is a practical solution.  It is definitely easier
than making autoconf macros.  

This brings up another question.  Should %load-path should generally
include /usr/local/share/guile/site by default?

Arguments in favor: it would keep symmetry with the emacs $(lispdir)
directory as described in the GNU coding standards. [1] 
Philosophically, can something be "site"-specific and not be "local"?

Arguments opposed: don't fix what ain't broke.

Thanks,

Mike Gran

[1]
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Directory-Variables.html





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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Note that the `GUILE_SITE_DIR' M4 macro gives you
"`guile-config info pkgdatadir`/site".  But as Greg said, you may want
to avoid using it since it is independent of the `--prefix' option that
was passed to your package's `configure'.

Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> writes:

> This brings up another question.  Should %load-path should generally
> include /usr/local/share/guile/site by default?
>
> Arguments in favor: it would keep symmetry with the emacs $(lispdir)
> directory as described in the GNU coding standards. [1] 
> Philosophically, can something be "site"-specific and not be "local"?

OTOH, why have two `site' directories by default?

Thanks,
Ludovic.



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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Mike Gran]

Ludovic-

Thanks.  That was exactly what I was looking for.

I was going to castigate myself for not RTFM, but, I didn't commit that
particular sin this time.  GUILE_SITE_DIR and other Guile Autoconf
support flags don't appear to be documented in the 1.8 reference
manual, as far as I can tell.  

(I did find then in the 1.6.x reference manual, however.)

Thanks again,

Mike Gran

--- Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Note that the `GUILE_SITE_DIR' M4 macro gives you
> "`guile-config info pkgdatadir`/site".  But as Greg said, you may
> want
> to avoid using it since it is independent of the `--prefix' option
> that
> was passed to your package's `configure'.
> 
> Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > This brings up another question.  Should %load-path should
> generally
> > include /usr/local/share/guile/site by default?
> >
> > Arguments in favor: it would keep symmetry with the emacs
> $(lispdir)
> > directory as described in the GNU coding standards. [1] 
> > Philosophically, can something be "site"-specific and not be
> "local"?
> 
> OTOH, why have two `site' directories by default?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludovic.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-user mailing list
> Guile-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
> 



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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Jon Wilson]

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> writes:
>> This brings up another question.  Should %load-path should generally
>> include /usr/local/share/guile/site by default?
>>
>> Arguments in favor: it would keep symmetry with the emacs $(lispdir)
>> directory as described in the GNU coding standards. [1] 
>> Philosophically, can something be "site"-specific and not be "local"?
>>     
> OTOH, why have two `site' directories by default?
>   
Using ubuntu, apt installs packages under /usr.  When I find something 
that either isn't up to date enough or doesn't exist in the ubuntu 
repos, I build it from source.  In that case, I either install to /opt 
or to /usr/local.  Sometimes this includes packages which want to 
install guile modules (currently, it includes guile!).  I try to keep 
/usr untouched except by apt, but it does make sense to have these 
modules in a `site' directory.

For instance, I have guile-lib installed from the ubuntu package to 
/usr/share/guile/site, and I have guile-gdbm installed to 
/usr/local/share/guile/site.  I think this constitutes a pragmatic 
(although perhaps not good?) reason to have two site dirs.

Regards,
Jon



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

Re: Autoconf test for site scheme files

[Greg Troxel]

Jon Wilson <jsw@wilsonjc.us> writes:

> Using ubuntu, apt installs packages under /usr.  When I find something
> that either isn't up to date enough or doesn't exist in the ubuntu
> repos, I build it from source.  In that case, I either install to /opt
> or to /usr/local.  Sometimes this includes packages which want to
> install guile modules (currently, it includes guile!).  I try to keep
> /usr untouched except by apt, but it does make sense to have these
> modules in a `site' directory.
>
> For instance, I have guile-lib installed from the ubuntu package to
> /usr/share/guile/site, and I have guile-gdbm installed to
> /usr/local/share/guile/site.  I think this constitutes a pragmatic
> (although perhaps not good?) reason to have two site dirs.

Sure, this makes sense - the problem is that people use the word site
for different things.  Long ago, on a 4.2 system, we had /usr/site and
/usr/local.  /usr/site was for the group of 15 machines (a lot of money
back then!), all synced from one.  /usr/local was really for the machine.

Note that /usr/local isn't necessarily a good choice because on FreeBSD
the packaging system puts things there.  (I'm not saying it's a problem
in your case.)

In the present case, you're using prefix to separate package-managed and
local software.  I agree; I have base system (NetBSD) in /usr,
pkgsrc-managed packages in /usr/pkg and my own stuf f in /usr/y0.

I think it's perfectly sensible to have things in various prefixes for
separation by maintenance method.  What's needed is an /etc/prefixes
file, or something, that many programs can read to construct their
default search path.  Unfortunately this is messier because different
systems have different hierarchy rules (e.g., /usr/pkg/info vs
/usr/local/share/info), but in the guile case it's ok.

So, what do you do to get the various code loaded?  symlink stuff in
/opt into /usr?  Adjust load-path?

Also, I'm curious why you don't just update the source package yourself
and build it.  In pkgsrc I often just change version numbers in
makefiles and build.  But I have commit privs, so it isn't wasted work,
and pkgsrc has differet stability rules.


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