GNU bug report logs - #43976
[PATCH] Chicken build system + some example eggs

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 43976 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#43976] [PATCH] Chicken build system + some example eggs
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 05:14:28 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:09:29 +0100
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi raingloom!
> 
> raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net> skribis:
> 
> > From 2ba52705cf909590a428ea598dfdf1c61ada6a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > 2001 From: raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 04:11:59 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH 01/20] gnu: Added search paths for Chicken Scheme.
> >
> > * gnu/packages/chicken.scm (chicken): Added search paths
> >   [native-search-paths]: added CHICKEN_REPOSITORY_PATH and a
> > comment about CHICKEN_INCLUDE_PATH.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +    (native-search-paths
> > +     (list (search-path-specification
> > +            (variable "CHICKEN_REPOSITORY_PATH")
> > +            ;; TODO extract binary version into a module level
> > definition.
> > +            (files (list "var/lib/chicken/11")))))
> > +    ;; the use of this variable is unclear. the online docs don't
> > even
> > +    ;; mention it. i'm leaving it in as a comment for now, in case
> > +    ;; something breaks.
> > +    ;; (search-path-specification
> > +    ;;  (variable "CHICKEN_INCLUDE_PATH")
> > +    ;;  (files '("share")))  
> 
> I think you can remove the comment here; presumably we now know that
> CHICKEN_REPOSITORY_PATH is the one that matters.  :-)

I guess I can, since it doesn't looks like it will cause problems. I
left leave the commented path there though.

> Could you please ensure that earlier comments notably at
> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/43976#1> have been taken into account,
> that the SRFI packages still build and have a layout consistent with
> the var/lib/chicken/11 search path above, and send a v2 of the whole
> series?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ludo’.

Everything builds, tests succeed, and the layouts are the same.
The comments have been taken into account. I listed them in previous
mails so I'll skip them now.
For srfi-14, I hope "non-copyleft" is fine.
Ran guix lint on all packages and it only mentioned archival.

Thanks for the feedback!

ps.: sending the updated original patchset.
i also have these for a later patchset:
0011-gnu-Added-chicken-compile-file.patch
0012-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-18.patch
0013-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-13.patch
0014-Added-chicken-check-errors.patch
0015-Added-chicken-defstruct.patch
0016-gnu-Added-chicken-matchable.patch
0017-gnu-Added-chicken-record-variants.patch
0018-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-41.patch
0019-gnu-Added-chicken-uri-common.patch
0020-gnu-Added-chicken-uri-generic.patch

[0001-gnu-Added-search-paths-for-Chicken-Scheme.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-guix-Added-chicken-build-system.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-gnu-Use-qualified-license-names-in-chicken.scm-inste.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0004-gnu-Added-chicken-test.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0005-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-1.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0006-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-69.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0007-gnu-Added-chicken-iset.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0008-gnu-Added-chicken-datatype.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0009-gnu-Added-chicken-srfi-14.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0010-gnu-Added-chicken-agrep.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.