[Openmcl-devel] "Binary" distributions

[Hamilton Link]

I would rather not see the form of what is currently called the 
"binary" release to change, but possibly it would be better given the 
label of "bootstrap" release. When I keep up with the latest version of 
things, I typically update from CVS, unpack the latest bootstrap 
(binary) release, and rebuild everything. None of this jeopardizes 
things I may have changed, as long as the bootstrap release has only 
the minimal set of files in it.

The "binary release" label could be given to precompiled lisp kernels 
and images in a fuller directory structure -- under OS X, a .pkg file 
would be ideal -- that has the examples directory, defpackage support, 
etc. included to be more compatible with the mass public's 
expectations. Then they'd be left to wonder (and presumably read about) 
what the "bootstrap" release is for and how it's different. If they're 
already reading the build cycle web pages, distinguishing between 
ppc-boot.image and the bootstrap release shouldn't be as confusing.

h

On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:01 AM, Gary Byers wrote:

> The fact that as many people have had similar difficulty with this for
> as long as they have suggests that explaining things over and over
> again on the web site isn't the right solution.  I'll try to package
> the next release (or next patch release) as a self-contained archive.
>
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Peter Seibel wrote:
>
>> Okay, now that I've gone back and read the web pages more carefully I
>> understand what's going on.
>>
>> But let me offer a bit of friendly kibitzing: the use of the word
>> "binary" to describe OpenMCL's binary archives is confusing to
>> simple-minded people like me who have learned that when things are
>> distributed in both source and binary form, the binary one is the one
>> for end users who don't care about rebuilding from scratch, i.e. the
>> one you can just grab and get up and running.
>>
>> On my way to trying out Bosco 0.5 I installed openmcl-0.14.1-p1. My
>> first attempt was to grab the binary distribution which of course
>> didn't work because none of the libraries such as OBJC-SUPPORT are
>> available. Eventually I struggled my way through by tracking down the
>> *module-search-path* and making symlinks from the directory where I
>> had unpacked the binary distribution to my cvs tree. Which is of
>> course totally going around my elbow to get to my thumb. (I also got
>> hung up by the lack of interface database. But I've done that enough
>> times that I at least recognize the problem now and say, "oh yeah,
>> I've got to go grab the interface distribution too.")
>>
>> Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with OpenMCL--my attempts to connect to
>> QuickTime are going great and I've got the beginnings of a
>> ear-training program going. Now I just need to learn enough about
>> Cocoa programming to put a whizzy gui on it. And now that I understand
>> how things work, the next time I download a new release I'll probably
>> not have quite so much trouble.
>>
>> But I thought you might want to know about the present-day user
>> experience for someone who's not yet deeply immersed in the OpenMCL
>> Way.
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>> --
>> Peter Seibel                                      peter at javamonkey.com
>>
>>          Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>