Re: Scripting for installing a module
On 22/07/02 07:43pm, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: > > On 7/2/22 10:46, James Crake-Merani wrote: > > On 22/07/02 09:11am, adriano wrote: > > > Il giorno ven, 01/07/2022 alle 18.15 +0100, James Crake-Merani ha > > > scritto: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I was just wondering what approach people tend to take when writing a > > > > script which installs a module onto the load-path. I understand this > > > > path might be different on different machines so how do you make sure > > > > the module is installed in the right path? Would you use something > > > > like a Makefile? > > > not only a Makefile > > > > > > The whole Autotools chain > > > > > > There are 2 options: > > > > > > 1) you write the config.am and Makefile.am (or however they're called) > > > by hand and you deal with the Autotools directly, by hand > > > > > > 2) You use guile-hall and it will wrap the Autotools making the > > > experience a bit less frustrating > > > > > > > > > > > > BUT > > > > > > I wonder: why you want to install your module ? > > > > > > You might want to distribute it as a simple handful of source files > > > > > > Guile will compile it automagically at need > > > > > > If your module has no dependencies, that could be an easy option > > > > > > If it _has_ dependencies, then the Autotools might be of help > > > > > > Did you think about this ? > > > > > > I hate to second guess your question > > > > > > I understand it might be perceived as rude and I'm sorry for that > > > > > > I just think these distinctions in use cases are not clear at all, in > > > the manual and in general > > > > > > So this could be an easy pitfall > > Hi, > > > > Don't worry, you didn't come across as rude at all. My use case was simply > > that I wrote some modules that I wanted to distribute, and I thought that > > if I'm going to distribute them, I probably ought to put some sort of > > script in so users can install them as well. The modules in question are > > just a simple project which tests your conformance to a certain political > > ideology (which is not sophisticated at all because it was more of a joke > > between friends that I thought would make a good programming exercise). > > After seeing Guile Hall recommended by yourself, and Jeremy I thought this > > might be appropriate. My modules have no dependencies aside from those > > already part of Guile although I do intend to write another module which > > will depend on the previous module. > > > > So if I were to take the latter approach of just distributing the source > > code then I presume users would have to load the file manually, or install > > it manually unless I'm missing something. In that case, I would've thought > > using something like Guile Hall would be more appropriate but again I might > > be missing something. > > > > I have just found the manual pages detailing Guile Hall which I was not > > originally aware of. After reading them, it does seem to me that Hall would > > be appropriate for this but of course I would be willing to hear about > > alternatives to distributing the code. > > > > Thanks for your response. > > Hello James! > > If your code is Guile code exclusively, then you might not need Guile Hall > for packaging your code. You can make a GNU Guix package without Guile Hall. > That is not to say, that Guile Hall does not work well, but I had a project, > which I wanted to package and ultimately I did not want to depend on all the > autotools machinery, which I do not understand. It has been a while, since I > have packaged anything (I should really clean the repo a bit …), but the > project I have is https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl/guile-fslib. I think > tag 0.2.1 should contain a valid guix.scm. This repo also still has files > from previous Guile Hall attempts. However, you might have to study the docs > to get things working for your own project and how to test it with guix. I > remember, that I used a VM for testing installation of the package. > Somewhere I have a repository, which describes the process. > > Regards, > Zelphir > > -- > repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl > Hi, The reason why I have been a bit reluctant to use GNU Guix for this sort of thing is that the distro I use is not Guix but rather Arch Linux. I do intend to try out GNU Guix in the future but at the moment I have lots of other things to do. I am aware Guix does work on foreign distros but I will need to learn how to use it first. I understand what you say regarding Guile Hall. I too do not understand the autotools machinery but it did seem simple to setup without that understanding. Thanks for sharing your repository. I think for now I will probably end up using Guile Hall although I might experiment with just purely Guix, and see if I can get that to work how I want it as well. Thanks.
Re: Scripting for installing a module
On 22/07/02 02:09pm, Matt Wette wrote: > Another option is some variant of > > $ sudo cp xyz/file.scm `guile -c '(display > (%global-site-dir))'`/xyz/file.scm > > On 7/1/22 10:15 AM, James Crake-Merani wrote: > > guile -c '(display (%global-site-dir))'Hello, > > > > I was just wondering what approach people tend to take when writing a > > script which installs a module onto the load-path. I understand this path > > might be different on different machines so how do you make sure the module > > is installed in the right path? Would you use something like a Makefile? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Hi, Something like that would probably work as well. I might give it a go. Thanks for your response.
Re: Scripting for installing a module
On 7/3/22 09:35, James Crake-Merani wrote: On 22/07/02 07:43pm, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: On 7/2/22 10:46, James Crake-Merani wrote: On 22/07/02 09:11am, adriano wrote: Il giorno ven, 01/07/2022 alle 18.15 +0100, James Crake-Merani ha scritto: Hello, I was just wondering what approach people tend to take when writing a script which installs a module onto the load-path. I understand this path might be different on different machines so how do you make sure the module is installed in the right path? Would you use something like a Makefile? not only a Makefile The whole Autotools chain There are 2 options: 1) you write the config.am and Makefile.am (or however they're called) by hand and you deal with the Autotools directly, by hand 2) You use guile-hall and it will wrap the Autotools making the experience a bit less frustrating BUT I wonder: why you want to install your module ? You might want to distribute it as a simple handful of source files Guile will compile it automagically at need If your module has no dependencies, that could be an easy option If it _has_ dependencies, then the Autotools might be of help Did you think about this ? I hate to second guess your question I understand it might be perceived as rude and I'm sorry for that I just think these distinctions in use cases are not clear at all, in the manual and in general So this could be an easy pitfall Hi, Don't worry, you didn't come across as rude at all. My use case was simply that I wrote some modules that I wanted to distribute, and I thought that if I'm going to distribute them, I probably ought to put some sort of script in so users can install them as well. The modules in question are just a simple project which tests your conformance to a certain political ideology (which is not sophisticated at all because it was more of a joke between friends that I thought would make a good programming exercise). After seeing Guile Hall recommended by yourself, and Jeremy I thought this might be appropriate. My modules have no dependencies aside from those already part of Guile although I do intend to write another module which will depend on the previous module. So if I were to take the latter approach of just distributing the source code then I presume users would have to load the file manually, or install it manually unless I'm missing something. In that case, I would've thought using something like Guile Hall would be more appropriate but again I might be missing something. I have just found the manual pages detailing Guile Hall which I was not originally aware of. After reading them, it does seem to me that Hall would be appropriate for this but of course I would be willing to hear about alternatives to distributing the code. Thanks for your response. Hello James! If your code is Guile code exclusively, then you might not need Guile Hall for packaging your code. You can make a GNU Guix package without Guile Hall. That is not to say, that Guile Hall does not work well, but I had a project, which I wanted to package and ultimately I did not want to depend on all the autotools machinery, which I do not understand. It has been a while, since I have packaged anything (I should really clean the repo a bit …), but the project I have is https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl/guile-fslib. I think tag 0.2.1 should contain a valid guix.scm. This repo also still has files from previous Guile Hall attempts. However, you might have to study the docs to get things working for your own project and how to test it with guix. I remember, that I used a VM for testing installation of the package. Somewhere I have a repository, which describes the process. Regards, Zelphir -- repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl Hi, The reason why I have been a bit reluctant to use GNU Guix for this sort of thing is that the distro I use is not Guix but rather Arch Linux. I do intend to try out GNU Guix in the future but at the moment I have lots of other things to do. I am aware Guix does work on foreign distros but I will need to learn how to use it first. I understand what you say regarding Guile Hall. I too do not understand the autotools machinery but it did seem simple to setup without that understanding. Thanks for sharing your repository. I think for now I will probably end up using Guile Hall although I might experiment with just purely Guix, and see if I can get that to work how I want it as well. Thanks. Hi James! You might already know this, but just in case you don't: You can also use Guix package manager without running the Guix distribution. This is called "Guix on foreign distro". For me this works well. If you already knew, nevermind : ) Regards, Zelphir -- repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl
Re: Curiosity: Microkernel implemented in Guile ?
Here is a toy kernel implemented in Loko Scheme that I just came across: https://github.com/luksamuk/loko-kernel On Sat, Jul 2, 2022, 16:48 Matias Jose Seco Baccanelli < matias_jose_s...@autoproduzioni.net> wrote: > Hello fellow Guilers! > Thank you so much for the wide input! > So cool to see many thriving initiatives! > > Il giorno Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:34:25 +0200 > Maxime Devos ha scritto: > > > Matias Jose Seco Baccanelli schreef op do 23-06-2022 om 08:11 [+0200]: > > > Feels like a nice recipe for User Empowerment ! > > > > How does this empower users? > > My rationale is about having the advantage of scheme programming > approach than c paradigm. I feel this brings it's magic pedagogic and > mind friendly source code. > > > Sure, if the user is a programmer they > > can modify their custom microkernel in Scheme, but then you have a > > very niche OS that practically no other software already supports, > > which is very inconvenient for the user and the user will have > > practical difficulties sharing the software with other people using > > other OSes > > Indeed, i'm too newbie about the topic, i thought integration between > kernel and software was straightforward, but i can imagine that many > additional tools/steps might be required for that. > > > ,so I think you're better of modifying another > > pre-existing microkernel to be usable from Guile (see answer by Dr. > > Arne Babenhauserheide). > > I think that's a great idea and initiative! > > > Greetings, > > Maxime. > > Thanks for the interesting reflection! > Again my knowledge on these fields are still under > development^^ so this are mainly curiosities and sensations! > Thanks! > >
