Re: [Chicken-hackers] pkg-config support in chicken-install

[felix . winkelmann]

> I would make an exception for pkg-config because it is:
>
> 1) almost ubiquitous
> 2) extremely simple
> 3) quite uncontroversial (essentially .ini files listing the same flags
> we'd be passing to compilers anyway, but in a standard format)

I can't comment on that, I don't know enough about it, with the
exception of pkg-config related errors I darkly remmeber, but
that may have been caused by my borked setup.

> The thing is, the reasonable defaults usually involve installing
> software from the OS package manager in addition to the Chicken egg, so
> it'd be very useful if the egg description lists the names of the
> requisite OS packages.

Yes, but these names aren't even standardized across Linuxen, as
I've been told. A truly reliable approach sounds very much effort to
me. But, ok, one can at least try...

> There are other things that an egg's build script can detect (feel free
> to point at complex examples :) but people who work on that stuff
> basically enter a world of pain - arcane, buggy, non-portable stuff that
> can and often does change between OS and package releases.

Agreed.

> I approached this from the point of view of "how much convenience and
> reliability can we buy for how many lines of code". pkg-config support
> is tricky (which is why I suggest centralizing it in chicken-install)
> but it's not _that_ tricky.
>
> If there's still interest, I can try to write a prototype in Scheme.
> Then there's something concrete to talk about. But if you are completely
> opposed to doing things like this already, I respect your wishes - after
> all it's your implementation and I'm an outsider. No hard feelings :)

I'm not completely opposed but extremely wary. And nevermind who's
implementation it is (I couldn't say) and there are no outsiders. Seeing
a prototype would be actually pretty helpful, since I have no clear idea
how this should be implemented.


felix