On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great! Care to ITP them?
They're all a kinda rough. A little background here: a while ago I compiled as many scheme implementations as I could for cygwin. When cygport came out, I even made a few packages, but I never ran genini, or tried them with setup.exe. In general, my MO was: If it worked for me, I was done. When my work computer (the whole reason I use cygwin) was upgraded, I grabbed as much of my scheme work as I could. Realizing the foolishness of not creating a personal repo, I started one. Then I decided to mirror my personal repo to a web URL and report it to the mailing list. What does ITP stand for, anyway? > I would review them. We would just need debian links. debian links?? I use debian at home, but what do you mean here? > At least bigloo and slib should be in the official distro. slib is in Yaakov's cygwin ports, but the version number is too low to compile the latest SCM. His README states that later slib versions don't work with gnucash (which is not in cygwin ports). Yaakov, are you planning to release gnucash? And will a recent slib really conflict with that? bigloo, chicken, Gambit-C, PLT, & SCM are all major free scheme implementations that are worthy of the official distro. I am working on Gambit-C now. > 2008/7/9 Nathan Thern: >> bigloo > Aren't there some more requires missing? > You have only libgmp, which should be libgmp3. > I would also expect libsqlite3_0 srfi openssl OK >> chicken > I would exclude the generated files from the src patch: > DIFF_EXCLUDES="chicken-config.h chicken-defaults.h" OK. DIFF_EXCLUDES will clean up my gauche patch too. chicken is my favorite scheme & the build is real smooth on cygwin. If I ITP, chicken will be first. >> gauche > This is a mess. Will fix. I think I mimicked the args cygport passes to configure. Removing them will be a start. > The DLL /usr/bin/libgauche.dll was forced with this name, > so you could have used the better name cyggauche0.dll forced? My patch to the gauche source was very minimal. Do I have to use libtool to create cygfooX.dll? BTW, what's with all the variations on the end of cygfoo? I've seen cygfoo.dll, cygfoo0.dll, cygfoo-0.dll and cygfoo-5.dll to name a few. >> ikarus > Same libgmp issue as with bigloo: libgmp3. > /usr/bin/scheme-script.exe cries for a name clash with other schemes. > Is this really kosher? OK >> ksi > The si/ksi_sign.c patch is not kosher. OK >> plt > Whow! Yeah, PLT is a beast. > (system-type) should return 'cygwin I agree the patch will never fly outside cygwin. I believe I was forced to patch (system-type) to return 'unix. It has to do with the build system only considering cygwin to be a substitute for msys & wanting to build win32 executables. I have to fake out the build system to believe it's building on generic unix to get a POSIX/cygwin aware result. > I miss ghc ( Glasgow Haskell Compiler ) Working on it. Pretty rough going (reference the comment about the PLT build system & inflate to your worst nightmare.) > scm ( Scheme in Javascript :) not scm, I think. jsScheme? > Can you put the cygport files also somewhere Nah, most of these fail to build without the source patches anyway. Just download the source packages & throw out what you don't want. regards, NT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
