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

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:18:54PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > 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.

Only if "meta" is chosen as the distribution method (rarely ever used),
and then it will only look at that to figure out which files to download.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature