[cells-gtk-devel] SBCL patches

[Andras Simon]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Peter Denno wrote:

> On Thursday 01 June 2006 15:30, you wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Peter Denno wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> OK. The patches that Marco Gidde provided are now in CVS, and the "News"
>>> section of the web page has been updated to mention this.
>>
>> Great! Thanks!
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> So does anyone here have thoughts on how we can make things better?
>>
>> I'd like to clean up the code a little bit to reduce the number of
>> compiler notes of the different lisps. The attached patch and a new
>> file (gtk-ffi/package.lisp) is a first step in this direction.
>>
>> The patch is pretty uncontroversial (I think!) except for the
>>
>> -      (cffi:load-foreign-library #+cffi-features:unix "libcellsgtk.so"
>> +      (cffi:load-foreign-library #+cffi-features:unix
>> +				 (merge-pathnames "libcellsgtk.so" #.*compile-file-pathname*)
>>
>> part. It works for me in all lisps I tried, but still... Or are users
>> supposed to install libcellsgtk.so in /usr/lib/ or some such?
>
>
>>
>> One more thing: since Cells has become Cells2, I think we should have
>> a version of Cells in the repository at least until (if ever) we
>> convert cells-gtk to Cells2.
>
> Good point. The tarball uses what Kenny Tilton was calling "cells 2," though
> it might have changed since I last checked. I'll at least check in what I've
> got.

I'm rather confused about Cells versions. All I know for sure is that
cells-gtk is incompatible with the latest CVS Cells (Cells 3?), so
it'd be nice to provide a cells-gtk-friendly version of Cells, either
in a separate tarball, or (better) in CVS. In the long run, it'd
probably make sense to switch to Cells 3.

>
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> These look fine. I'll check the merge-pathnames thing for libcellsgtk on
> lispworks.  I think the use of /usr/lib or whatever is leftover from the days
> when we had to specify (or thought we had to specify) the library path. This
> is better if it works. I'll check lispworks, at least.

I tested it with LWL/SBCL/ACL, but more testing never hurts...

>
> It might be a few days before I get this in CVS. But I'll make a note so I
> don't forget ;^)

That's fine with me. In the meantime, should I be making new patches
against the patched version, or the CVS version?

Andras