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

On Oct  6, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > 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.

I agree that it is a bad idea, but by I don't think there's any to
confuse people who do try it.


> > > 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.

You can use mzc to compile a Scheme file (through gcc) to
native-code.  Such files will end up in the collects dir in some
subdirectory named for the platform.


> > 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.

Oh, whatever (I know nothing on these tools)...  It just sounds like a
hard thing to decide what goes where.  If you're aiming at a basic
minimal set of files for pure users, you don't need the documentation
tree also, help-desk, mzc, etc, but pulling these things out might
break other things (I'm not sure).  BTW, if you are doing the
separation work anyway, then a seperate mred+drscheme rpm sounds like
a good idea.


> > 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.

Go to www.plt-scheme.org, then to software, then to "other plt
software", and you'll see four entries that are all included.  (But I
don't know if they plan on adding more stuff.)

>  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 ?

But see above.


> >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.

(That's why it was in parens.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!