Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions

[Joris van der Hoeven]

> > > > In last resort, we may include the whole scheme implementation
> > > > in our sources, or statically link it with TeXmacs, as we already do.
> > > 
> > > Please don't do that, it would be a waste of bandwidth for everyone
> > > who gets the schememe implementation from independent source. Plus
> > > the burden for you to synchronize with new upstream versions of
> > > scheme.
> > 
> > I don't agree: we do this for the binary packages that *we* provide.
> > In standard distributions, like Debian or Mandrake, the packagers may
> > choose not to follow this convention, and rather add some dependencies.
> 
> But you would have the  complete scheme source tree as a subtree of the
> texmacs source, wouldn't you?

There are two solutions:

1) Provide the scheme source tree as a subtree of the TeXmacs source.
   This is convenient for developers, so that they won't have to
   download additional software.

2) Just statically link the scheme library to TeXmacs for the binary
   distributions, but don't include the scheme sources. This is convenient
   for ordinary users, but forces developers to download and compile
   a scheme distribution before TeXmacs. On the other hand,
   the size of the source distribution remains smaller.

At the moment, I have opted for the second solution, because Guile is
widely spread now anyway. If we choose a less used scheme distribution,
then we might opt for 1, but I actually think that I will stick to 2.