[plt-scheme] Fwd: [Contrib-Rpm] drscheme-202-1mdk

From: Guillaume Rousse (rousse at ccr.jussieu.fr)
Date: Sun Oct 6 12:09:07 EDT 2002

Le Dimanche 6 Octobre 2002 06:49, vous avez écrit :
> On Oct  6, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > I've juste introduced drscheme in Mandrake Linux contributions. As
> > src rpm found on your website was..., hum, ugly, i had to rewrite it
> > from scratch.  I'd bet the author (i'm CCing him this mail, just in
> > case he would not be subscribed to the list) should learn to use rpm
> > better instead of using ironics comments about insecure langages in
> > spec file :-)
> It looks like you're not a regular here so to make things clear -- I'm
> not representing PLT here...  (I suspect that such comments are not
> surprising coming from someone who implements a very good language and
> environment but has to fight with a half-baked semi-language hack to
> install that nice environment.)
I'm myself totaly debutant to scheme and other non-imperatives languages, i 
had much troubles understanding the final install procedure, but i would not 
consider it a broken language juste because i don't know it enough...
And just to be clear, i had no intent to be offensive.

> > Final result is available on every mdk mirrors worldwide, and spec
> > file from mandrake CVS here
> > http://cvs.mandrakesoft.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/contrib-SPECS/drscheme,
> > if your'e interested.
> Just a quick comment -- unless I'm missing something you're not
> running the PLT ./install, which will leave the installation without
> .zo files and the result will be extremely slow.  (BTW, I don't think
> there should be any problem making the RPM have the .zo files since
> they're platform independent, and making them takes a while -- enough
> to make people suspect that something went bad in the RPM
> installation...)
I'm triggering .zo file creation and PLT dir setup in scripts manually from 
spec file, at %install stage. Apart automatic update research on the web, 
which is irrelevant here, i think it gives the same result.

> > First, i've attempted to achieve FHS compliance by keeping only
> > collects and teachpack dirs in $PLT_HOME. binaries, includes,
> > libraries and man pages, are in their standard system directories. I
> > just kept a bin symlink in $PLT_HOME pointing to /usr/bin, as i
> > think binaries call each others by refering to $PLT_HOME/bin as
> > path.
> Wouldn't it be better to have the links in system directories pointing
> to real files in the PLT directory?  PLT have their own mechanism for
> upgrading stuff, which means that if such a tool is ever used to
> update on of these files (which didn't happen so far IIRC), it will
> replace the link with a real file and the file in the system directory
> will still be the old one.
Mixing rpm-based installation and manual installation/upgrade procedure is a 
bad idea IMHO. Once you use a rpm, upgrade the rpm otherwise you will 
short-circuit rpm database.

> > Second, i've setup $PLT_HOME as /usr/lib/drscheme (maybe i should have
> > used /usr/lib/plt instead ?).
> plt sounds like a better name (drscheme is just one thing you can run
> out of many others).

> > I was not sure generated .zo file are platform independant,
> They are -- unless I missed some recent changes, but I'm pretty sure
> they are.  (The mzc manual seems to imply this.)
> > otherwise /usr/share/drscheme (or plt) would be more adequate.
> The problem is that native-compiled files will end up in the same
> tree.
Please explain me what are those native-compiled files, i'm lost there.

> > Third, i segregated statics libs and headers in a -devel package, as
> > they are not useful unless you want to develop for
> > drscheme. However, i saw there are other headers left in main
> > package, as $PLT_HOME/collects/compiler/mzclink.h, and c exemple
> > files, as whole $PLT_HOME/collects/mzscheme/examples directory.  Can
> > i also safely transfer those files in -devel package ?
> But these are a tiny fraction of the whole thing.  Plus, I never
> understood the point of having a -devel rpm for a language, unless
> it's just some very limited run-time thing.  For example, RedHat (at
> least 7.3 and 8) don't have a perl-devel rpm.  I saw that Mandrake
> does have one, but it is tiny compared to the standard package.
Small rivers make big streams :-)
Well, if you're just a perl user, you don't need perl-devel. You need it only 
if you want to compile perl modules. Splitting package is a way to give more 
flexibility to your setup. Of course, it also suppose you have some 
rpm-management tools over raw rpm, as urpmi or apt-get.

> > Fifth, i have several zero-lenght files, as
> > $PLT_HOME/collects/launcher/sh, or
> > $PLT_HOME/collects/doc/drscheme/keywords.scm. Can i safely remove them ?
> Not on my machine (and I just installed the PLT RPM to check it too).
> Must be something from your environemnt...
> > --=-=-=
> > Name        : drscheme                     Relocations: (not
> > relocateable) Version     : 202                               Vendor:
> > MandrakeSoft Release     : 1mdk                          Build Date: Sat
> > Oct  5 23:43:58 2002 Install date: (not installed)               Build
> > Host:
> >  klama.mandrake.org Group       : Development/Languages         Source
> > RPM: (none)
> > Size        : 5019551                          License: PLT
> > Packager    : Guillaume Rousse <g.rousse at linux-mandrake.com>
> > URL         : http://www.drscheme.org
> > Summary     : PLT DrScheme
> > Description :
> > DrScheme, a pedagogical programming environment.
> > --=-=-=
> The license is a standard LGPL no?
No idea, i used original plt rpm value here.

> Also, I would call the rpm plt for the same reason as the directory
> name,
I found the package following a link called "Download DrScheme", so i assumed 
i downloaded only a part of plf project.

 I would put a link to http://www.plt-scheme.org/ since it is
> more useful
From what i understand from web site, plt also include others projects, 
whereas this package only correspond to a subproject. When packaging gcc, you 
don't refer to GNU project page, do you ?

>and I would say something about a(n excellent) Scheme
> programming environment since it is way past the point of being just a
> "pedagogical programming environment".
I just used the original plt rpm description also. BTW, using personal 
appreciations in a software description is wrong: if you package it, it is 
generally because you find it good enough.
Guillaume Rousse <rousse at ccr.jussieu.fr>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html

Posted on the users mailing list.