Re: [Chicken-hackers] scheme-bytestructures, multi-implementation libraries

[felix . winkelmann]

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:59:52PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > > I think it would be good for chicken's spread and adoption in the scheme
> > > world if its install system supported this case of multi-implementation
> > > libraries, where the chicken-specific files can all be in a
> > > subdirectory.  To that end, I propose that some declaration could be
> > > added to .release-info that would tell henrietta-cache of the path in
> > > which to find .meta and .setup, and in which to build the extension.
> >
> > Hm... perhaps we could try both *.setup + *.meta and chicken/*.setup +
> > chicken/*.meta, but I guess this would require changes to THE SYSTEM
> > (Peter?)
>
> Doing that would require changes to chicken-install, not to the server-side
> infrastructure.  Well, we _could_ do it server-side, somehow mapping some
> files under chicken/ to the root dir, but I think the degree of mindfuck
> that would involve would be too high.

Doesn't the server side look at the meta files? If not, then of course this
case can easily be handled by chicken-install alone.


felix