Re: [Chicken-users] depreciating CHICKEN_HOME

[Brandon J. Van Every]

felix winkelmann wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Is the msvc vcbuild.bat version of Chicken the only one that relies on
> > CHICKEN_HOME?  If so, I suggest it be depreciated for all other
> > installations.  If we've gone to the trouble of hardwiring a bunch of
> > directories for csc.exe, I don't see why CHICKEN_HOME should have the
> > right to mess them up.  Unless I'm missing something about how
> > CHICKEN_HOME is actually used by people.  In the sources, it looks like
> > a hack to allow vcbuild.bat to install in a flat directory when everyone
> > else has a hierarchical directory structure.
>
> Sorry, I can't follow this at all: vcbuild.bat doesn't use CHICKEN_HOME,
> also makefile.vc doesn't. For Windows platforms built via makefile.vc, 
> csc.scm
> uses CHICKEN_HOME, as this seems to be the only decent way of 
> specifiying an
> installation destination. 

What I mean is, csc built from vcbuild.bat or makefile.vc relies on a 
hardwired behavior for CHICKEN_HOME.  ./configure builds and 
installations do not appear to depend on CHICKEN_HOME for anything, 
either at build time or runtime, although I could be mistaken.

> If you do it through cmake, we can (and should) change
> csc.scm.in to use the configured destination instead of CHICKEN_HOME.

I'm working on it.  It is like excising a cancer.  See my post about 
Windows pathnames.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every