[Bese-devel] Loading UCW with ucwctl, cl-launch etc

[Nathan Bird]

Trying to keep the length down, but we have a couple of topics going on
simultaneously here.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: bese-devel-bounces at common-lisp.net [mailto:bese-devel-bounces at common-
>lisp.net] On Behalf Of Luca Capello
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:35 AM
>To: bese-devel at common-lisp.net
>Subject: Re: [Bese-devel] Loading UCW with ucwctl, cl-launch etc
>
>Hello!
>
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:40:42 +0200, Nathan Bird wrote:
>> What? How? Seriously, I'm lost here.
>
>And I'm here to save you :-D
Woohoo! Seriously though, I didn't include to many logs and such because I
was to far off, I needed to see further how the intended system worked, and
how to try to match that with what I am doing before I could tackle any of
the specific bugs. Its become a bit clearer in the past day, but I think
there are still things we can do to smooth it out.

>I'd like to note that my patch doesn't depend on any Debian package.
>The problem about cl-launch vs cl-launch.sh was a very stupid one.
>The SLIME problem with cl-launch has nothing to do with Debian, in
>fact the Debian cl-swank package adopted a different workaround.

Ok, you are correct. I had gotten this from detachtty, which was ALREADY a
requirement that I had installed it with apt. When your patch said I needed
the darcs version, I opened the INSTALL file and found: "This is a native
Debian package, which means that if you are having trouble with the Debian
version there is usually little point in trying the upstream version to see
if it's improved." while upgrading to the upstream version ;-)

As a note I haven't been using the common-lisp-controller, I tried that when
I initially started out, but as I recall it was a couple of versions behind
and something I had needed a newer version. I take it some of this work is
to get UCW into a Debian system?

Hopefully we can get the patches to swank-loader.lisp committed at some
point... I resent a patch containing both my changes and your changes
(related to the CLC compatibility) to the slime-devel list
http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/slime-devel/2006-April/004791.html.

>> *	Multiple instances of UCW. [...] Installing stuff to /etc doesn't
>> work in this case.
>
>Nothing needs to be installed, as for the ucwctl command line
>arguments...  But I agree that having multiple shell scripts just to
>start multiple ucwctl instances with different parameters is not the
>best thing.

Is there any way to use a ucwctl.conf that isn't at /etc/ucw? I am going to
have to specify at least configfile and var every time. What is the
intention of ASDFROOT? Is this a replacement/standin for any asd setup the
lisp or lisp-init-file had been doing previously? 

The frustration is in having to specify several command line parameters at
every startup in order to work around the configuration file. I would rather
specify a few more parameters once when I write the deployment script.

Alternatively I could bypass using the -c flag by editing default.lisp
analogous to how I use start.lisp now. I didn't know that yesterday. (Thanks
everyone)

>> [...]
>> Can we instead default to ucw_dev/bin/etc/* ?
>
>I should say that the other idea was to implement something like a
>`make install` command...
>
>I'm against defaulting to ucw_dev/bin/etc/*, but if this is the common
>decision, I'll agree on that.
>
>BTW, as Marco suggested on private conversation, ucw_dev/bin/etc
>should be probably moved to ucw_dev/etc.

I like the idea of ucw_dev/etc. 
Is there a reason you don't like having all of the configuration wrapped up
into UCW? If the files are being distributed in ucw_dev/etc it is more
intuitive to me to have the defaults point there. I have seen this pattern
of keeping a project-local 'etc' in a few other projects that are
distributing cross platform versions. Maybe I have just had the misfortune
of dealing with more bad ports of unix projects to windows than you have had
to suffer.

I'm (attempting to) suggest we have the defaults make UCW work out of the
box... you know after forcing the guy to fetch a dozen different
dependencies :-)

>> *	ANYTHING in the readme?
>
>Maybe I didn't sponsor it, but there a manual page for ucwctl: [...]

I saw that but my initial impression was that it was the same info as the
--help. I now see it has more in it, either that or someone was doing some
patch magic overnight ;-) I spoke precipitously.


Nathan