Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

* felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com [170103 23:50]: > > I think it would. To truly test in a clean environment I would suggest to > use a fresh chicken installation for case 1 as well. Note that this can > be done by pure copying/hardlinking of files, assuming the user

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:35:46 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > >> Salmonella relies on -prefix to install eggs into a fresh local egg > >> repository. That's how it is able to catch dependency problems, for > >> example. > > > > Shouldn't you use a separately built chicken

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:35:46 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: >> Salmonella relies on -prefix to install eggs into a fresh local egg >> repository. That's how it is able to catch dependency problems, for >> example. > > Shouldn't you use a separately built chicken insallation for that, >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

> Salmonella relies on -prefix to install eggs into a fresh local egg > repository. That's how it is able to catch dependency problems, for > example. Shouldn't you use a separately built chicken insallation for that, with a pristine egg repository for each run? felix

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:56:07 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: >> Regarding C5, any idea on how to implement a tool like salmonella? > > I don't know how S. uses this feature. Once the new-install runs in > a sort-of stable way, we can take care of that. Salmonella relies on -prefix to

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Should we make a 4.12 release?

> The question was actually related to C4, as the behavior of -prefix > changed in 4.11 (see http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1298 ). Yes, that might be. The answer is still the same. It was a hack from the beginning. > > Regarding C5, any idea on how to implement a tool like salmonella? I