[Openmcl-devel] Launcher script should guess the architecture

Eitarow Fukamachi e.arrows at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 02:37:52 UTC 2011


Alright, I understood your thought about that, and I felt you are right.
It might not give any helps to newcomers.

Thank you.

--
Eitarow Fukamachi



On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Gary Byers <gb at clozure.com> wrote:
> The manual suggests that people who can run a 64-bit version and don't
> care about running the 32-bit version might want to just rename the "ccl64"
> shell script.
>
> I'd guess that the original poster is right in suggesting that newcomers
> find
> this confusing, but I think that that may be because people from different
> backgrounds have different levels of comfort/familarity with using the shell
> ("copy this file to a directory that's on your shell's search path" may be a
> simple thing for some people and a big mystery for others.)
>
> I don't have a good sense for what things newcomers find confusing (as
> far as I can tell, it depends on the newcomer and everyone can be
> confused about things that most other people aren't.)  I'm really
> skeptical that the fact that there are two shell scripts instead of
> one has much of an effect on this: that seems like a simple concept
> to understand (even if "use chmod to ensure that the file is executable"
> isn't.)
>
> If a single script defaulted to selecting the 64-bit version if it looked
> like the OS allowed that, that script would need some way of overriding
> the default (a "-32" arg or something like that.)  It's not clear that
> being able to say:
>
> ccl
> ccl -32
>
> is a whole lot better or worse than the status quo (or that installing and
> editing one shell script in /usr/local/bin is preferable or significantly
> simpler than doing that twice is.)  This is all a relatively minor thing,
> but I'd feel a lot more enthused about changing the documentation, changing
> my habits, and asking people to change theirs than I do if I thought that
> the proposed change was significnantly better (for somebody) than the status
> quo, and at this point I just don't see that.
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Leo wrote:
>>
>>> It is not unreasonable to assume that most of the time they want 64 on
>>> 64-bit machine.
>>
>> In any event, all of this is easily customized by either editing or
>> renaming the scripts, using an alias in your .bash_profile, using a symlink,
>> etc.
>>
>> warmest regards,
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Raffael Cavallaro
>> raffaelcavallaro at me.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmcl-devel mailing list
>> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
>> http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
> http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel
>



More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list