Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?

[Ivan Raikov]

"felix winkelmann" <address@hidden> writes:

>
> If you say "the egg format specified", what do you mean exactly? The
> .meta file, or a separate entity?

  I would like to have a single egg description file that is simply an
alist with make rules, file groups and installation locations. You can
call it .meta or whatever else you like.

>
> Ok, I understand. And I do not oppose a higher-level approach to
> describing an egg's contents (for example by using a DSL). But
> I still would like to simplify it as much as possible (rather provide
> the option to use the functionlity of egg setting-up as a library,
> and so giving the user full control, instead of trying to write the
> perfect package management system). Additionally there is no
> way of breaking backwards-compatibility with existing .setup
> scripts. The transition to modules will be hard enough and a new
> chicken-setup could provide a high-level interface for new eggs
> plus a API for old ones.


   I am not proposing a package management system, why do you keep
insisting on that? I just want chicken-setup to be flexible enough to
be run by package building tools. In order to do that, you need to
support abstractions for fetching source files, make rules, file
categories and installation locations. If I have that, I am willing to
write a .setup transition tool that can automatically translate 90% of
the current .meta and .setup files to the new egg description
language.

   -Ivan