Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Allow `files' in the toplevel of egg description files

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 16:26:38 +0200 Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 11:09:28AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > Attached is a small patch to address http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1511
>> > 
>> > If it looks good, I propose the documentation that you can see in the
>> > second patch (files-doc.diff).
>> > 
>> 
>> I suggest we use a different name to avoid confusion, say, 
>> "distribution-files".
>
> That could work.  Currently the uri style is called "meta-file", in which
> henrietta-cache will look for a 'files entry.  This will require tweaking
> if we want to allow distribution-files.  Maybe we should then also add an
> "egg-file" option which works exactly like "meta-file", but which looks for
> 'distribution-files instead.
>
> Note that there's also still the "files-list" option, which works with
> both CHICKEN 4 and CHICKEN 5.  Personally I don't care much what we do
> with this, but I'd prefer if a decision can be made soonish so we can
> make a new RC as soon as possible.

How should we go about this topic?

The easiest approach would be using `files' in the egg description file.
It should not require any modifications to henrietta-cache.  As far as I
can see, only flipping `f' in chicken-install.scm should do the trick.
Felix mentions `files' in the toplevel can be confusing, though.

To use `distribution-files' in the egg description file, we'd have to 1)
make chicken-install handle it (or just accept it), 2) make
henrietta-cache use it 3) deploy the new henrietta-cache to both egg
servers.  I don't think this approach is very complicated, but it is
certainly more work.  And I don't know much about henrietta-cache
internals, but I suppose the change would not be a big deal.

As I mentioned, I'm fine with any of these options.

All the best.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario