Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] A native scheme install

[Jim Ursetto]

If you can demonstrate that some core code (such as chicken-install)
would be improved with the addition of file-install then it might
be worth adding to core (probably in setup-api though).

I still think putting the file-install code in install.scm is
a better solution for that particular script as it is then
not restricted to 4.8.2 or higher, and it doesn't require any
core code changes.  Then later you could drop this compat code
if and when it became available in core.
 
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Michele La Monaca wrote:

>> Well, your proposition also includes adding a bunch of code to the
>> files unit (that relies on unit posix, which is likely
>> a no-go in and of itself).
>> 
>> Here's my humble suggestion: Move your file-install and file=? code
>> directly into your install.scm script, and we'll make the install.scm
>> script available from the downloads page as an option.
> 
> Yes, that was an option I considered. In the end I preferred to
> include them in the library because I thought (and still think) they
> are general enough to be readily available.
> E.g. file-install might be used by chicken-install instead of those
> "(command "~a ~a ~a..." forks. Anyway, judging from your answers, you
> have a different opinion. No problem, I don't get personal on this
> kind of things.
> 
> As regarding the specific problem (install on Solaris), I would be
> fine with a sane default in the Makefile which to me means
> '/usr/ucb/install'.
> 
> Regards,
> mikele