Re: chicken scheme

[John J Foerch]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> John J Foerch <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> I don't have enough experience with guix to give definite advice on
>> this, but chicken does present a couple of unique issues.  I think that
>> having gcc available is essential to chicken's purpose, as one is not
>> likely to only use the interpreter.  Installing extensions requires C
>> compilation, and if one is not installing extensions and not using
>> chicken's compiler, then one might as well be using any old scheme off
>> the street ;-)
>
> Right, makes sense.  :-)
>
>> If the gcc-toolchain were kept in reference (but not in the profile),
>> that may be enough.  The chicken compiler has options (and/or
>> environment variables) to use another gcc if desired, so people who want
>> to use another gcc than the one used to build chicken can still do so.
>
> OK.  Then I guess we should adjust our ‘chicken’ package so that it
> hard-codes the absolute file name of ‘gcc’ and ‘ld’.  Would you like to
> give it a try?
>

Sure!

>> Some chicken extensions install executable programs (for example
>> hyde).  On other OSes they would normally be installed to
>> /usr/local/bin.  Obviously this would be different for guix.
>
> This part doesn’t sound Guix-dependent.  It’s more about whether
> non-root users can install to, say, ~/.local, or whether only root can
> install (to /usr/local/bin or similar.)  WDYT?
>

Sorry, I don't really understand the issues at hand well enough yet to
comment.  I have been looking at 'guix import', as I said in my other
message, and I now wonder if a package importer is the best way forward,
in accordance with the guix spirit.

--
John Foerch