Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
Actually, upon further reflection, I think my previous post was a bit confused. The reasons I gave were surely valid reasons for *something*, but maybe not for the points I was making ;-) What I really want to say is that: * I believe that in some hypothetical future where people are developing end-user applications in Chicken Scheme, not just the applications but all their runtime dependencies, typically including a number of eggs, should be made available as packages for Arch (or whatever flavor of) Linux - for all the usual reasons we have packages and libraries to begin with. Although an AUR package doesn't provide much benefit in and of itself (it has to be compiled either way, and chicken-install is very easy to use), I imagine the developer is hoping the application will eventually be accepted into the official repo; at least I would, if I were the developer. And at that point not just the app but all its dependencies will need to be available as binary packages. * On the other hand, as long as the only purpose for the egg packages is to provide libraries for developers, I would agree that it is a waste of time to package them. Let developers just use chicken-install. And consequently, I will *not* be thinking about how to automate AUR-packages-from-eggs. Hope that doesn't break anyone's heart. -- Matt Gushee On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:21 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Matt Gushee scripsit: Also, in my experience with various Linux tribes, there is a general expectation that binary packages should depend only on other binary packages. Indeed, there is a potential security issue in that (at least in principle) official binary packages are tested and security-audited by the dev team of any given distribution, so allowing a package to install other software outside the distribution's procedures would be frowned upon if not prohibited in most distributions. Sure. But in that case it is the business of the OS-specific packager to ensure the appropriate dependencies are provided in an OS-specific manager. Chicken by itself has no way to specify, except in prose, what the non-Chicken dependencies of any given egg are, because there are no universal names for these dependencies. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities; analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities. --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
Matt Gushee scripsit: Also, in my experience with various Linux tribes, there is a general expectation that binary packages should depend only on other binary packages. Indeed, there is a potential security issue in that (at least in principle) official binary packages are tested and security-audited by the dev team of any given distribution, so allowing a package to install other software outside the distribution's procedures would be frowned upon if not prohibited in most distributions. Sure. But in that case it is the business of the OS-specific packager to ensure the appropriate dependencies are provided in an OS-specific manager. Chicken by itself has no way to specify, except in prose, what the non-Chicken dependencies of any given egg are, because there are no universal names for these dependencies. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities; analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities. --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
Most of the chicken-egg packages on aur.archlinux.org have been orphaned. Most of these will not build because a recent pacman update made implementing package() mandatory. I've taken maintainership of a few packages, but I'm only trying Chicken out. If any of you are Arch users, you may want to consider taking maintainership of some of these packages if you use them. Note that the template used for most of those packages are old and quite hackish, and I'm only vaguely aware of how it even works. I've adopted a much simpler method from perlawk. For an example, see: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chicken-iset/PKGBUILD With that out of the way, I do have a couple related questions: 1) Does chicken have a way to check if there are new versions of libraries? Most of these libraries don't actually have a website or up-to-date version information, and the only way I've seen so far to tell the latest version is to download it with chicken-install and check the version in the $name.setup file. 2) Is there a way to track dependencies for chicken packages? So far, the only way I've noticed is to install the package and check for errors. This is problematic for packages because I might have a dependency on my computer that another use does not. Some libraries document dependencies on their wiki page, but some don't. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
Most of them probably don't need to be packaged on the AUR. I've always tried to stay away from AUR sponsored packages that were available through a languages built-in package manager, since the AUR packages may or may not be up to speed with the latest release available via `chicken-install' On 01/09/2015 02:51 PM, Aaron Paden wrote: Most of the chicken-egg packages on aur.archlinux.org have been orphaned. Most of these will not build because a recent pacman update made implementing package() mandatory. I've taken maintainership of a few packages, but I'm only trying Chicken out. If any of you are Arch users, you may want to consider taking maintainership of some of these packages if you use them. Note that the template used for most of those packages are old and quite hackish, and I'm only vaguely aware of how it even works. I've adopted a much simpler method from perlawk. For an example, see: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chicken-iset/PKGBUILD With that out of the way, I do have a couple related questions: 1) Does chicken have a way to check if there are new versions of libraries? Most of these libraries don't actually have a website or up-to-date version information, and the only way I've seen so far to tell the latest version is to download it with chicken-install and check the version in the $name.setup file. 2) Is there a way to track dependencies for chicken packages? So far, the only way I've noticed is to install the package and check for errors. This is problematic for packages because I might have a dependency on my computer that another use does not. Some libraries document dependencies on their wiki page, but some don't. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users -- Alexej Magura ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
I don't think that's quite right. Python also offers similar tools, but every Linux distro I've seen also supplies Python packages in their repositories. While pip is great for development, when it comes to distribution, end-users on Linux still expect to be able to use their package manager to install applications, which necessarily requires using the package manager to handle dependencies. I don't know if there are any traditional Unix-style applications or utilities written in Chicken Scheme being distributed to end-users currently, but the reason why I'm even checking it out is because it does seem better suited to this task than a lot of other Lisp/Scheme implementations. On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 15:12 -0700, Alexej Magura wrote: Yeah, offering eggs via any other method, but chicken-install, is an overly complicated and unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem, and the solution tends to breed more problems of its own. Such as: how do I check if there's a more recent release for egg XYZ I'd send a request to AUR General, IIRC that's the appropriate mailing list, and ask them to delete the AUR packages in question. On 01/09/2015 03:05 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: IMO, system-specific package libraries should be used only for Chicken itself, and eggs should be updated solely by chicken-install. -- Alexej Magura ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
I'd forgotten about tools written in Chicken Scheme; it's a very valid point. On 01/09/2015 03:39 PM, Aaron Paden wrote: I don't think that's quite right. Python also offers similar tools, but every Linux distro I've seen also supplies Python packages in their repositories. While pip is great for development, when it comes to distribution, end-users on Linux still expect to be able to use their package manager to install applications, which necessarily requires using the package manager to handle dependencies. I don't know if there are any traditional Unix-style applications or utilities written in Chicken Scheme being distributed to end-users currently, but the reason why I'm even checking it out is because it does seem better suited to this task than a lot of other Lisp/Scheme implementations. On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 15:12 -0700, Alexej Magura wrote: Yeah, offering eggs via any other method, but chicken-install, is an overly complicated and unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem, and the solution tends to breed more problems of its own. Such as: how do I check if there's a more recent release for egg XYZ I'd send a request to AUR General, IIRC that's the appropriate mailing list, and ask them to delete the AUR packages in question. On 01/09/2015 03:05 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: IMO, system-specific package libraries should be used only for Chicken itself, and eggs should be updated solely by chicken-install. -- Alexej Magura -- Alexej Magura ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Arch User Repository packages
I've never liked the duplication within the system package manager. Ensuring Eggs are available and installed could be done as part of the tools' install script. -Dan On 9 Jan 2015 14:40, Alexej Magura agm2...@gmail.com wrote: I'd forgotten about tools written in Chicken Scheme; it's a very valid point. On 01/09/2015 03:39 PM, Aaron Paden wrote: I don't think that's quite right. Python also offers similar tools, but every Linux distro I've seen also supplies Python packages in their repositories. While pip is great for development, when it comes to distribution, end-users on Linux still expect to be able to use their package manager to install applications, which necessarily requires using the package manager to handle dependencies. I don't know if there are any traditional Unix-style applications or utilities written in Chicken Scheme being distributed to end-users currently, but the reason why I'm even checking it out is because it does seem better suited to this task than a lot of other Lisp/Scheme implementations. On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 15:12 -0700, Alexej Magura wrote: Yeah, offering eggs via any other method, but chicken-install, is an overly complicated and unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem, and the solution tends to breed more problems of its own. Such as: how do I check if there's a more recent release for egg XYZ I'd send a request to AUR General, IIRC that's the appropriate mailing list, and ask them to delete the AUR packages in question. On 01/09/2015 03:05 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote: IMO, system-specific package libraries should be used only for Chicken itself, and eggs should be updated solely by chicken-install. -- Alexej Magura -- Alexej Magura ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
