Re: Chicken-setup redesign (was: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: getopt, getopt_long?)

[felix winkelmann]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Shawn Rutledge
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I look at it this way: what is essential is the metadata, including
> the enumeration of the files that are included along with what they
> _are_.  If I say "here are my source files, here are my documentation
> files, and here are my examples" why shouldn't chicken-setup know what
> to do with them by default?  Or if you even leave those out, but have
> a standard directory structure (src, doc and examples) chicken-setup
> could make straightforward decisions based on that.  So the minimum
> requirement would be a metadata file containing the egg description
> and category.

Actually I would leave out documentation files, examples and installation
of applications - just handle libraries and have the wiki page link to examples
stored somewhere. The metadata on the other hand is already there
(the "repository" file), and I have written a script (mostly untested) that
takes a svn tree and generates eggs and a repository file containing all
metadata (maintenance/create-repository.scm in the svn tree toplevel).

>
> Writing a separate setup script in addition to that should be
> optional, and rare.  I don't like all the duplication of information
> with the current requirements for writing an egg.

Yes, I understand. But there are always situations where building
an extension can become arbitrarily complex. Here a procedural
way (i.e. a script) must in the end be available.


cheers,
felix