> From: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> > Hi Mike! > > Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> skribis: > >> It'll be fun to try to minimize it down to just >> the guile executable, libguile-*, and a scheme archive file. And it >> might help with distribution of prebuilt versions. > > Are you saying that, say, Lilypond’s tarball would contain libguile.so > and the .go files? (I guess not but then I don’t get it. ;-)) I'm saying that you could create a Guile build that would make only three non-documentation output products: libguile.so, all the .go files in a single .iso or .tar file, and the Guile executable. The libguile would be modified so that the .iso or .tar file would never be unpacked. Guile would look inside the .tar or .iso for the compiled .go files. (I'm assuming this is for use as an extension, so I'm ignoring complications like guile-readline for now.) This way, if one wanted to distribute compiled versions of Guile along with an application, one would only need to add the libguile.so and the go-tar or go-iso file. If you wanted to get really minimal, you could actually put the .go tar archive or .go iso archive within a binary segment of the libguile.so itself, so that you'd only need to distribute libguile.so. > I would borrow code from Bigloo, Chicken, or some other Scheme > implementation that comes with that, or write it anew in Scheme.
Wouldn't work in this case, since Guile needs to read .go files before it can interpret scheme. Thanks, Mike
