Re: chicken scheme

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

John J Foerch <jjfoerch@earthlink.net> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I don't have enough experience with guix to give definite advice on
> this, but chicken does present a couple of unique issues.  I think that
> having gcc available is essential to chicken's purpose, as one is not
> likely to only use the interpreter.  Installing extensions requires C
> compilation, and if one is not installing extensions and not using
> chicken's compiler, then one might as well be using any old scheme off
> the street ;-)

Right, makes sense.  :-)

> If the gcc-toolchain were kept in reference (but not in the profile),
> that may be enough.  The chicken compiler has options (and/or
> environment variables) to use another gcc if desired, so people who want
> to use another gcc than the one used to build chicken can still do so.

OK.  Then I guess we should adjust our ‘chicken’ package so that it
hard-codes the absolute file name of ‘gcc’ and ‘ld’.  Would you like to
give it a try?

> Some chicken extensions install executable programs (for example
> hyde).  On other OSes they would normally be installed to
> /usr/local/bin.  Obviously this would be different for guix.

This part doesn’t sound Guix-dependent.  It’s more about whether
non-root users can install to, say, ~/.local, or whether only root can
install (to /usr/local/bin or similar.)  WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.