sbcl package definition

sbcl package definition

[Kete]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

Instead of ./configure, make and make install, sbcl uses a command like 
this: INSTALL_ROOT=/home/me sh install.sh

How would the build-system and inputs go?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 344 bytes --]

Re: sbcl package definition

[Cyril Roelandt]

On 10/06/2013 07:23 AM, Kete wrote:
> Instead of ./configure, make and make install, sbcl uses a command like
> this: INSTALL_ROOT=/home/me sh install.sh
>
> How would the build-system and inputs go?
>

I think you should use the trivial build system, and define a builder in 
the arguments:

(arguments
   '(#:builder
     (...)))


See gnu/packages/autotools.scm, for instance.


Cyril.

Re: sbcl package definition

[Cyril Roelandt]

On 10/06/2013 09:28 PM, Cyril Roelandt wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 07:23 AM, Kete wrote:
>> Instead of ./configure, make and make install, sbcl uses a command like
>> this: INSTALL_ROOT=/home/me sh install.sh
>>
>> How would the build-system and inputs go?
>>
>
> I think you should use the trivial build system, and define a builder in
> the arguments:
>

Forget it and see Ludovic's answer :)

Cyril.

Re: sbcl package definition

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Kete <kete@ninthfloor.org> skribis:

> Instead of ./configure, make and make install, sbcl uses a command
> like this: INSTALL_ROOT=/home/me sh install.sh
>
> How would the build-system and inputs go?

In general, when that happens, we still use ‘gnu-build-system’ but
customize/remove some of the phases.

An example of that is ‘net-tools’ in linux.scm: it has no ./configure
script, and has specific makefile targets.

For SBCL, you would probably remove the ‘configure’ phase, perhaps the
‘build’ phase too, and replace the ‘install’ phase:

  (alist-replace
   'install
   (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
     (let ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))
       (setenv "INSTALL_ROOT" out)
       (zero? (system* "sh" "install.sh"))))
   (alist-delete 'configure %standard-phases))

HTH,
Ludo’.

Re: sbcl package definition

[Ludovic Courtès]

Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@gmail.com> skribis:

> On 10/06/2013 09:28 PM, Cyril Roelandt wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 07:23 AM, Kete wrote:
>>> Instead of ./configure, make and make install, sbcl uses a command like
>>> this: INSTALL_ROOT=/home/me sh install.sh
>>>
>>> How would the build-system and inputs go?
>>>
>>
>> I think you should use the trivial build system, and define a builder in
>> the arguments:
>>
>
> Forget it and see Ludovic's answer :)

In short ‘trivial-build-system’ is really too trivial: it doesn’t have
the notion of phases, doesn’t unpack the source tarball, etc.

Ludo’.