[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new slib and guile 1.6.7
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: new slib and guile 1.6.7 |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:38:33 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Greg Troxel <address@hidden> writes:
> Here's the code snippet from ice-9/slib.scm, with use of load that
> respects the prefix (NetBSD/pkgsrc puts things in /usr/pkg, not /usr).
>
> (define-module (ice-9 slib)
> :export (slib:load
> implementation-vicinity
> library-vicinity
> home-vicinity
> scheme-implementation-type
> scheme-implementation-version
> make-random-state
> <? <=? =? >? >=?
> require)
> :no-backtrace)
>
> ;; Load slib's init routine.
> (load (string-append (assoc-ref %guile-build-info 'pkgdatadir)
> "/slib/guile.init"))
I haven't had a chance to delve very deeply here, but I just grabbed
the debian 3a2-2 tree, unpacked it, edited guile.init to fix the one
case problem (UNIX -> unix), then symlinked the slib dir as ./slib
into my guile 1.6 CVS checkout and tried this:
$ ./pre-inst-guile
guile> (load-from-path "slib/guile.init")
guile> (require 'new-catalog)
guile> (require 'fft)
guile> fft
#<procedure fft (ara)>
guile>
At least from this admittedly trivial test, ignoring ice-9/slib.scm
and using the slib guile.init directly seems to work.
So do we have any known arguments against just using slib's guile.init
and submitting fixes upstream?
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4