Hi, On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:44:32 +0100 felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>> > 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 didn't >> > modify installed files. > > I was talking nonsense here - of course simply copying file won't do, as > installation paths are compiled into the binaries. Indeed. Copying wouldn't work, but the link approach should work for tools and core libraries (it will add a dependency on link support on filesystems and operating systems, though). However, if the local egg repository path is going to be hardcoded in C5, this approach would not work for eggs/chicken-install. >> Case 1 does detect undeclared dependencies before authors check in >> their eggs. This has helped me in the past as I am known for missing >> those. > > That can still be done, and seems to me independent of -prefix. by > using salmonella like any other egg. I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Salmonella needs a way to install eggs using an empty local egg repository, otherwise the already installed eggs may prevent the detection of dependency problems. In C4, salmonella uses chicken-install with the -prefix option to point to an empty egg repo. How can we install eggs using an empty egg repo in C5? Is there another way to detect dependency problems in C5? All the best. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
