Re: [Chicken-hackers] manual and chicken4 infrastructure

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:38:32AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Shawn Rutledge
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Ideally no eggs would be left behind, but maybe that's not realistic.
> > Some other projects end up maintaining both new and old branches for
> > years for that kind of reason.  (KDE 3, Qt 3, ReiserFS V3, perl 5,
> > BlueZ 2 and 3, ...) And Linux distros will tend to lag behind for a
> > long time, too.  E.g. I have to work on OpenEmbedded one of these
> > days, and I imagine Gentoo won't get Chicken 4 for quite a while
> > either.

Sigh, stupid lagging distros... Oh well, can't blame them I suppose,
but the next time I read a bugreport for Chicken 2 on these lists I'm
going to throw a fit!

> The eggs for chicken-3 will remain, but it doesn't make sense to port
> all of the chicken-3 eggs to chicken-4. Some of them simply will
> not work because they use old internal code (codewalk, for example).
> And some eggs are probably obsolete.

In my experience, porting eggs is trivial in the majority of cases,
so there's no reason eggs should stay unported, unless we want to ditch
them. It's probably best to contact an egg's author before attempting
to port it, to check whether he thinks the egg is deprecated or not.

Egg authors, please use your own good judgement & taste :)

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth

pgpLIBxqZPEfm.pgp
Description: PGP signature