[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Packaging practices

From: felix winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Packaging practices
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:59:01 +0100

On 11/6/05, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
> What are, in this list's opinion, the recommended best practices for
> distributing free software written in Chicken? I'm thinking proper
> GNU-style source tar balls, since that's currently the basis for most
> further (distro specific and other binary) packaging.
> * Do you use autoconf, if so, what do you check for?
> * What about automake?
> * Do you make one distribution containing the full .scm-files and one
>   with just the .c-files, or do you only make the .scm-distribution?
> * How do you deal with third-party eggs from the
>   call-with-current-continuation repo that your program uses?

One example of using the autotools is here:

It's rather minimalistic, but should show the general procedure.
Apart from Chicken itself, I try to avoid autoconf/automake as much
as possible, but it certainly is a standard way of handling the build
of source packages.
I would add the .scm sources. Then you can bootstrap the .c files from
those - it's the same as in chicken: the .c files are compiled by default,
only if someone touches the .scm files, they get recompiled.
If you use eggs, things might get a bit tricky, but it is always possible to
include the sources (provided, the license issues are clear) and compile
them into something that can be statically linked into the executable
(try the csc "-E" option). If you have problems figuring out the right
incantations to include the egg of your choice, ask here.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]