1. Euphoria and apt
Euphoria has 6 projects listed on freshmeat under 'Euphoria'.
But Euphoria is not listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
The following languages have zero projects on freshmeat
but are listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
Brainf**k
Icon
Chill
Intercal
Faust
Cobol
Oberon
Nemerle
Octare
SPL
Treelang
Zinc
These languages are not even listed under 'programming language'
on freshmeat. That suggests there there are no projects on freshmeat
written in any of these languages. Yet you can install all these
languages with apt (Advanced Package Tool).
I figure why not Euphoria, which has 6 projects listed under
'Euphoria' on freshmeat.
(After Euphoria, then the next step will be to do the same with wxEuphoria.)
2. Re: Euphoria and apt
Jerry Story wrote:
>
> Euphoria has 6 projects listed on freshmeat under 'Euphoria'.
> But Euphoria is not listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
>
> The following languages have zero projects on freshmeat
> but are listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
> Brainf**k
> Icon
> Chill
> Intercal
> Faust
> Cobol
> Oberon
> Nemerle
> Octare
> SPL
> Treelang
> Zinc
>
> These languages are not even listed under 'programming language'
> on freshmeat. That suggests there there are no projects on freshmeat
> written in any of these languages. Yet you can install all these
> languages with apt (Advanced Package Tool).
>
> I figure why not Euphoria, which has 6 projects listed under
> 'Euphoria' on freshmeat.
>
> (After Euphoria, then the next step will be to do the same with wxEuphoria.)
Well, there is a Debian package in the archive, although it's an older version
of Euphoria:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/euphoria-pd_2.5-1_i386.deb
I thought about updating it, just haven't got around to it. It seems pretty
straightforward and there are good resources on the net for making your own
packages.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
3. Re: Euphoria and apt
Jerry Story wrote:
>
> Euphoria has 6 projects listed on freshmeat under 'Euphoria'.
> But Euphoria is not listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
>
> The following languages have zero projects on freshmeat
> but are listed in the Synaptic Package Manager.
> Brainf**k
> Icon
> Chill
> Intercal
> Faust
> Cobol
> Oberon
> Nemerle
> Octare
> SPL
> Treelang
> Zinc
>
> These languages are not even listed under 'programming language'
> on freshmeat. That suggests there there are no projects on freshmeat
> written in any of these languages. Yet you can install all these
> languages with apt (Advanced Package Tool).
>
> I figure why not Euphoria, which has 6 projects listed under
> 'Euphoria' on freshmeat.
>
Well, just because nobody has bothered to package Euphoria for Debian/Ubuntu. Or
rather, I packaged Euphoria 2.5 for Debian, and then uploaded the package to
rapideuphoria.com (and didn't get any sponsor to upload it to Debian itself, as
getting it included wasn't very feasible as Euphoria wasn't open source back
then, and my package wasn't really policy-compliant in any way, it had no source
package etc etc). But this may be very possible now. Basically, there isn't
someone or a group of people deciding on that they want these languages included
in Debian, instead single persons decide that they want to package something.
That Euphoria isn't in Debian yet just means that noone has decided to do so yet.
Actually, I did look at packaging Euphoria 3.0, but it turned out to be quite
complicated, especially because of the (quite odd) build system/makefiles used to
build it.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
4. Re: Euphoria and apt
Alexander Toresson wrote:
>
> Actually, I did look at packaging Euphoria 3.0, but it turned out to be quite
> complicated, especially because of the (quite odd) build system/makefiles used
> to build it.
It's a lot better now. It's not perfect, but the Makefile works to build
the binaries.
Matt
5. Re: Euphoria and apt
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Toresson wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I did look at packaging Euphoria 3.0, but it turned out to be
> > quite
> > complicated, especially because of the (quite odd) build system/makefiles
> > used
> > to build it.
>
> It's a lot better now. It's not perfect, but the Makefile works to build
> the binaries.
>
> Matt
Sounds good, I might do another attempt in the future then.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
6. Re: Euphoria and apt
I think one of the key things would be to install stuff to "the right places".
Such as "/opt" or "usr/local" for Euphoria (I think I would prefer /opt myself)
and then either soft links or scripts in the path pointing to the right binary
versions.
And then pointing the interpreter to the proper include directory.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
7. Re: Euphoria and apt
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> I think one of the key things would be to install stuff to "the right places".
>
> Such as "/opt" or "usr/local" for Euphoria (I think I would prefer /opt
> myself)
> and then either soft links or scripts in the path pointing to the right binary
> versions.
>
> And then pointing the interpreter to the proper include directory.
>
Here's the debian policy manual:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html
And yes, quite an important part of it is where to place files. This basically
follows the FHS, the file hierarchy standard. And well, that applications from
packages install themselved into /opt or /usr/local is prohibited.
But the policy does far from only consist of placing files in the right places.
In any case, yes, environment variables (EUDIR and EUINC) will have to be
provided. And this might be a problem. I solved this in my packages version of
2.5 so that exu was a bash script that first set the env vars correctly and then
called the real exu binary.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
8. Re: Euphoria and apt
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at y??oo.com>
Sep 21, 2007
-
Last edited Sep 22, 2007
Alexander Toresson wrote:
> Here's the debian policy manual: <a
> href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html">http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html</a>
>
> And yes, quite an important part of it is where to place files. This basically
> follows the FHS, the file hierarchy standard. And well, that applications from
> packages install themselved into /opt or /usr/local is prohibited.
>
> But the policy does far from only consist of placing files in the right
> places.
>
> In any case, yes, environment variables (EUDIR and EUINC) will have to be
> provided.
> And this might be a problem. I solved this in my packages version of 2.5 so
> that exu was a bash script that first set the env vars correctly and then
> called
> the real exu binary.
>
> Regards, Alexander Toresson
I've read stuff saying /opt and /usr/local are practically the same but I would
definitely follow the Debian Policy Manual and put it under /opt (since I didn't
find anything against that -- it is an add-on package).
Here's how I would do it:
Create an install directory /opt/euphoria/[ver]/* (regular Euphoria hierarchy).
As with any other package, the user can override this.
Modify the interpreter source so if EUDIR and EUINC do not exist, then look in
/etc/euphoria.conf (or something) for the proper values and set them. The
installation scripts should create this file. A person will be able to override
these in his or her own startup files, though.
Create a soft link /usr/bin/exu that points to the exu binary.
Where do other languages like Python and Perl put their hierarchies? I'll have
to peek into one of their files.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
9. Re: Euphoria and apt
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at y?ho?.com>
Sep 21, 2007
-
Last edited Sep 22, 2007
Hmm. Looking into ubuntu's python 2.5 package it puts some python language files
under /usr/lib/python2.5/*.py
Hmm. I'd make a directory /usr/lib/euphoria, then I would have softlinks to each
of Euphoria's normal directories under the /opt/euphoria/[ver] hierarchy.
Of course, I guess that wouldn't work if /opt and /usr were on different
volumes.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
10. Re: Euphoria and apt
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at y?hoo.co?>
Sep 21, 2007
-
Last edited Sep 22, 2007
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Hmm. Looking into ubuntu's python 2.5 package it puts some python language
> files
> under /usr/lib/python2.5/*.py
>
> Hmm. I'd make a directory /usr/lib/euphoria, then I would have softlinks to
> each of Euphoria's normal directories under the /opt/euphoria/[ver] hierarchy.
>
> Of course, I guess that wouldn't work if /opt and /usr were on different
> volumes.
Hmm. Make that /usr/share/euphoria instead of /usr/lib/euphoria -- according to
fhs that's the proper place. I guess python2.5 isn't sticking by the Debian
Policy Manual or fhs.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
11. Re: Euphoria and apt
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?a?l.com>
Sep 21, 2007
-
Last edited Sep 22, 2007
Alexander Toresson wrote:
>
> In any case, yes, environment variables (EUDIR and EUINC) will have to be
> provided.
> And this might be a problem. I solved this in my packages version of 2.5 so
> that exu was a bash script that first set the env vars correctly and then
> called
> the real exu binary.
>
You're just not thinking hard enough. :) Since we can alter the source, my
suggestion would be that we add EUDIR/EUINC macros, or something, so that when
we build with them, the values given are assumed by the interpreter/etc.
So:
EUDIR=/usr/share/euphoria/
EUINC=/usr/include/euphoria/
...or wherever they end up. We can still check the EUINC variable, of course,
so that we can still personalize the way we organize our includes. And
we can still build a 'vanilla' version that uses the traditional, "stick
everything in home" assumptions.
Matt
12. Re: Euphoria and apt
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Toresson wrote:
> >
> > In any case, yes, environment variables (EUDIR and EUINC) will have to be
> > provided.
> > And this might be a problem. I solved this in my packages version of 2.5 so
> > that exu was a bash script that first set the env vars correctly and then
> > called
> > the real exu binary.
> >
>
> You're just not thinking hard enough. :) Since we can alter the source, my
>
> suggestion would be that we add EUDIR/EUINC macros, or something, so that when
> we build with them, the values given are assumed by the interpreter/etc.
>
> So:
>
> EUDIR=/usr/share/euphoria/
> EUINC=/usr/include/euphoria/
>
> ...or wherever they end up. We can still check the EUINC variable, of course,
> so that we can still personalize the way we organize our includes. And
> we can still build a 'vanilla' version that uses the traditional, "stick
> everything in home" assumptions.
>
> Matt
Oh, yes, true.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
