[gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Blake Matheny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

Hello All,
I'm wanting to create a new category in portage, dev-scheme. There are several
scheme related ebuilds currently residing in various places (dev-util,
dev-lisp, etc) and consolidating them all into the same place would I think be
more sane for developers and users. In the past month there have been 3 new
developers brought in that have expressed interest in maintaining scheme
ebuilds, I think the new category would help with the maintenance.

The builds that I feel should be moved to dev-scheme are: dev-lisp/plt,
dev-lisp/kawa, dev-lisp/mzscheme, dev-lisp/bigloo, dev-lisp/gauche,
dev-lisp/drscheme, dev-lisp/chicken, dev-lisp/mit-scheme and dev-util/guile.
There may be others that I have missed, (Matt, anything?). Guile has the most
dependencies, with around 34 of them. There may be some debate as to whether
or not guile should be moved, but as guile is a Scheme interpreter I think
it's appropriate.

If people have objections, please let me know. The clock is ticking :-)

-Blake

-- 
Blake Matheny
jake@gentoo.org                  Computer Science is merely the post-Turing
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/     decline in formal systems theory.
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Matthew Kennedy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

Blake Matheny <jake@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hello All,
> I'm wanting to create a new category in portage, dev-scheme. There are several
> scheme related ebuilds currently residing in various places (dev-util,
> dev-lisp, etc) and consolidating them all into the same place would I think be
> more sane for developers and users. In the past month there have been 3 new
> developers brought in that have expressed interest in maintaining scheme
> ebuilds, I think the new category would help with the maintenance.

[...]


I think this is a great idea.  Go ahead :)

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

> The builds that I feel should be moved to dev-scheme are: dev-lisp/plt,
> dev-lisp/kawa, dev-lisp/mzscheme, dev-lisp/bigloo, dev-lisp/gauche,
> dev-lisp/drscheme, dev-lisp/chicken, dev-lisp/mit-scheme and dev-util/guile.
> There may be others that I have missed, (Matt, anything?). Guile has the most
> dependencies, with around 34 of them. There may be some debate as to whether
> or not guile should be moved, but as guile is a Scheme interpreter I think
> it's appropriate.

We seem to have difficulties being consistent in this area, but actual
language compilers / interpreters really belong in dev-lang (for
example, python is in dev-lang, while python extensions and libraries
are located in dev-python).

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Blake Matheny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1432 bytes --]

I know this is policy, but in the case where there are several interpreters
available (such is the case of Scheme), might it be more reasonable to put a
popular interpreter in dev-lang, and the rest into dev-scheme? This should
keep clutter in dev-lang to a minimum, and still allow users to easily browse
by their preferred language. What is the thought here?

-Blake


Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> > The builds that I feel should be moved to dev-scheme are: dev-lisp/plt,
> > dev-lisp/kawa, dev-lisp/mzscheme, dev-lisp/bigloo, dev-lisp/gauche,
> > dev-lisp/drscheme, dev-lisp/chicken, dev-lisp/mit-scheme and dev-util/guile.
> > There may be others that I have missed, (Matt, anything?). Guile has the most
> > dependencies, with around 34 of them. There may be some debate as to whether
> > or not guile should be moved, but as guile is a Scheme interpreter I think
> > it's appropriate.
> 
> We seem to have difficulties being consistent in this area, but actual
> language compilers / interpreters really belong in dev-lang (for
> example, python is in dev-lang, while python extensions and libraries
> are located in dev-python).
> 
> Best,
> g2boojum
> -- 
> Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>



-- 
Blake Matheny
jake@gentoo.org                  Computer Science is merely the post-Turing
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/     decline in formal systems theory.
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Brian Friday]

Just a pipe in from a non-dev,

The name "dev-scheme" seems to me to be a little bad mainly
because the word scheme is now used so frequently in or as
part of the name of applications today.   A freshmeat search
turned up 136 projects with scheme attached to it (wasn't
logged though so maybe this is lower with some filtering).
I've honestly never heard of "Scheme" before now so I did a
little googling.

While my initial google search enlightened me a little more
on what "Scheme" you are referring to (search turned up the
following,  Scheme is a statically scoped and properly
tail-recursive dialect of the Lisp programming language
invented by Guy Lewis Steele Jr. and Gerald Jay Sussman).
Because this lists "Scheme" as a dialect of lisp rather than
a completely separate language and add to that the confusion
that may arise with the usage of the word scheme in
applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good
reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it
is rather tedious.

Just my 2 cents,

Blake Matheny wrote:
> I know this is policy, but in the case where there are several interpreters
> available (such is the case of Scheme), might it be more reasonable to put a
> popular interpreter in dev-lang, and the rest into dev-scheme? This should
> keep clutter in dev-lang to a minimum, and still allow users to easily browse
> by their preferred language. What is the thought here?
> 
> -Blake
> 
> 
> 



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Matthew Kennedy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

Brian Friday <bfriday@lasierra.edu> writes:

[...]

> applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good
> reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it
> is rather tedious.

Yes, but dev-lisp is already chockers with common lisp stuff, so that
won't do.

dev-lang was suggested.  I think dev-lang was okay in the early days,
however I agree with Blake, the sheer number of scheme compilers
warrants a category of its own, if only to make life easier for the
maintainer.  Besides, there's already precedent with dev-java
containing several compiler implementations.

Matt
 
-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:07:01 -0600
Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> Yes, but dev-lisp is already chockers with common lisp stuff, so that
> won't do.
> 

What about a dev-commonlisp category then? Like there is app-emacs
(resp. app-vim) for emacs (resp. vim) packages, whereas other editors
goes to app-editors.

-- 
TGL.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Blake Matheny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> What about a dev-commonlisp category then? Like there is app-emacs
> (resp. app-vim) for emacs (resp. vim) packages, whereas other editors
> goes to app-editors.
Unfortunately I think the most correct solution isn't one that's available.
What would be correct, is having dev-scheme and dev-cl categories as sub
categories of dev-lisp, since technically Scheme and CL are both dialects of
Lisp. However this isn't an option. Creating dev-commonlisp is no better of a
solution than creating dev-scheme imho.

-Blake

-- 
Blake Matheny
jake@gentoo.org                  Computer Science is merely the post-Turing
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/     decline in formal systems theory.
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:07:01PM -0600, in
<87ptd61qcq.fsf@killr.ath.cx>, Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> Brian Friday <bfriday@lasierra.edu> writes:
> > applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good
> > reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it
> > is rather tedious.
> 
> Yes, but dev-lisp is already chockers with common lisp stuff, so that
> won't do.
If the objective is to choose a name for the category which accurately
describes its intended contents, I suggest "dev-lispscheme. One
alternative, just off the top of my head, would be to use "dev-scheme"
and drop a README in the Portage tree root directory which describes
what each category is supposed to contain and points to other detailed
documentation.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]

I'd be more inclined to go with lisp-scheme and lisp-cl categories in
the same vein as the games group did with app-games.
-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer and Project Co-ordinator,
Gentoo Linux					http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Blake Matheny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]

I think that's a good idea. Matt, what do you think?

-Blake

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> I'd be more inclined to go with lisp-scheme and lisp-cl categories in
> the same vein as the games group did with app-games.
> -- 
> Seemant Kulleen
> Developer and Project Co-ordinator,
> Gentoo Linux					http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant
> 
> Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
> Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E
> 



-- 
Blake Matheny
jake@gentoo.org                  Computer Science is merely the post-Turing
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/     decline in formal systems theory.
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

Hi,

I think dev-cl doesnt tell much, might be better to have something like
dev-clisp.. and while we're at it.. dev-lisp...

My 0.02 Euro

Olivier

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 06:37, Blake Matheny wrote:
> I think that's a good idea. Matt, what do you think?
> 
> -Blake
> 
> Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> > I'd be more inclined to go with lisp-scheme and lisp-cl categories in
> > the same vein as the games group did with app-games.
> > -- 
> > Seemant Kulleen
> > Developer and Project Co-ordinator,
> > Gentoo Linux					http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant
> > 
> > Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
> > Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E
> > 
-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Blake Matheny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> I think dev-cl doesnt tell much, might be better to have something like
> dev-clisp.. and while we're at it.. dev-lisp...
Not what I was suggesting. As seemant said, I think a good direction to go
would be lisp-clisp, lisp-scheme, etc as the game categories have done.

-Blake

-- 
Blake Matheny
jake@gentoo.org                  Computer Science is merely the post-Turing
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/     decline in formal systems theory.
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:02:23AM -0500, in
<20040127080223.GB5541@dev.gentoo.org>, Blake Matheny <jake@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> > I think dev-cl doesnt tell much, might be better to have something like
> > dev-clisp.. and while we're at it.. dev-lisp...
> Not what I was suggesting. As seemant said, I think a good direction to go
> would be lisp-clisp, lisp-scheme, etc as the game categories have done.
I know convention states that categories will be named <type>-<subtype>
and, by the "games" precedent, split into <subtype>-<subsubtype> when
necessary. Is there anything that actually stops us from using more than
one dash in a category name? I can see that this opens a huge can-o-worms,
but how about dev-lisp, dev-lisp-clisp, dev-lisp-scheme, etc.?


-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1123 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 04:14, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:02:23AM -0500, in
> <20040127080223.GB5541@dev.gentoo.org>, Blake Matheny <jake@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> > > I think dev-cl doesnt tell much, might be better to have something like
> > > dev-clisp.. and while we're at it.. dev-lisp...
> > Not what I was suggesting. As seemant said, I think a good direction to go
> > would be lisp-clisp, lisp-scheme, etc as the game categories have done.
> I know convention states that categories will be named <type>-<subtype>
> and, by the "games" precedent, split into <subtype>-<subsubtype> when
> necessary. Is there anything that actually stops us from using more than
> one dash in a category name? I can see that this opens a huge can-o-worms,
> but how about dev-lisp, dev-lisp-clisp, dev-lisp-scheme, etc.?

I am pretty sure that categories can only have one dash.  At least I
know that was true, but I am not positive if it still holds to be the
same.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Jean Jordaan]

Always when this comes back up I wish portage didn't categorize
in terms of an arbitrary fixed tree, but in terms of a flat list
(or alphabetical tree) of packages, where each package has one
or more keywords. In this case, scheme would have keywords like:
"dev lang lisp scheme" to show that it's a development package,
a computer language, a lisp (variant) and scheme. The user would
say e.g. 'emerge search lisp' to find it. Similarly
'emerge search editor' would find both emacs and vim.

.2c

-- 
Jean Jordaan
http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[George Shapovalov]

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 05:29, Jean Jordaan wrote:
> Always when this comes back up I wish portage didn't categorize
> in terms of an arbitrary fixed tree, but in terms of a flat list
> (or alphabetical tree) of packages, where each package has one
> or more keywords. In this case, scheme would have keywords like:
No. This will completely prohibit browsing the tree (yes, there are some of us 
who actually do this ;)). True, not always you can assign the unique category 
and lately some of them are becoming quite long. However the econd one is 
easily solved by multilevel categories. As for the first one..

A combined proposal for multilevel categories (like 
dev/lisp/{common,scheme...} might be in this case) and for search keywords 
went in for portage-ng some time ago (gentoo-portage-dev mailing list). There 
is absolutely no reason to limit us to one approach when we can easily have 
both ;). Unfortunately I do not think this will happen before transition to 
portage-ng (read for quite a while).

George


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Matthew Kennedy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 262 bytes --]

Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I think dev-cl doesnt tell much, might be better to have something like
> dev-clisp.. and while we're at it.. dev-lisp...

No, thats ridiculous.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage Category: dev-scheme

[Matthew Kennedy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1191 bytes --]

Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> writes:

[...]

> describes its intended contents, I suggest "dev-lispscheme. One
> alternative, just off the top of my head, would be to use "dev-scheme"
> and drop a README in the Portage tree root directory which describes
> what each category is supposed to contain and points to other detailed
> documentation.

Folks, you are making a meal out of this category naming!!!  Haven't
we got more pressing tasks at hand?

dev-scheme and dev-lisp are good enough name spacing.  Once the Scheme
stuff is moved from dev-lisp to dev-scheme, all that remains in
dev-lisp is approximately 100 Common Lisp-related ports and xlispstat
and lush (which are not Scheme or Common Lisp, but have a S-expression
syntax).

At that point, we'll *maybe* create dev-common-lisp and leave
xlispstat and lush in dev-lisp -- but I can't see justifying a
category with only 2 ebuilds in it, so lush and xlispstat will have to
move to dev-lang while dev-lisp would be dropped.  

It is my preference as a maintainer of dev-lisp to leave xlispstat,
lush and all the Common Lisp stuff in dev-lisp and move the scheme
stuff to dev-scheme.

Matt
-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]