Hi, Maxime Devos <[email protected]> writes:
> On 03-09-2022 11:43, zimoun wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 at 00:25, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Should we close it as 'notabug', or persist with the attempt to wrap the >>> cling binary with the include paths required to ease its setup? >> From my understanding about what cling is, we have a similar issue with >> some others packages. Bigloo does not work out of the box [1]: >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> $ guix shell -C bigloo libunistring gcc-toolchain libgc pcre \ >> -- bigloo /tmp/myfile.scm >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> Idem for ghc (Haskell) which requires gcc-toolchain. And I proposed [2] >> to have <X>-toolchain for a ready-to-use X compiling toolsuite where >> could be cling, ghc, bigloo, etc. >> >> For instance, Debian has haskell-platform which includes all a regular >> user needs for a regular Haskell development setup. And we already >> provide gcc-toolchain or clang-toolchain, or even gfortan-toolcahin, >> gdc-toolchain, piet-toolchain, etc. Therefore, we could also have >> the package cling-toolchain propagating all the required packages that >> we currently have to manually specify i.e. gcc-toolchain. >> >> WDYT? >> >> >> 1: https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected] >> 2: >> https://yhetil.org/guix/caj3okz0i0djqmzgj9wwzdc2tkc8wetzxqw46kh+vq9zkbgb...@mail.gmail.com > > I do not see any problems with a X-toolchain (with X=cling,ghc,bigloo, > ...) and they appear to be convenient. > > I'd say, go for it. In the case of cling, I'm not sure if that'd be adapted to the use case (you don't really use cling as a toolchain, but as a REPL to try things interactively), but otherwise I don't see any cons to being able to do that. Thanks, Maxim
