Graham Higgins <gjh@bel-epa.delete-this.com> writes:
> I have CMUCL running on an RH 6 x686 system. There is a glibc 2.1 build
> around, it's one of the "experimental" builds. The running CUMCL
> advertises itself as being built on 2Feb99, I *think* it's the linux
> longfloat version but couldn't be sure, I was trying out three/four
> build versions at the time.
>
> It's rather a shame that there isn't a viable Linux build-from-source
> route and it is a little disappointing that it takes so long for new
> builds to find their way on to the ftp site.
Actually, using Peter Van Eynde's Debian source packages for CMUCL you
can just type "make" and rebuild from source, but you need to have a
CMUCL binary installed. If you install his Debian package it will
compile right out of the tarball, but if you are running on RH you
might have to edit the makefile to tell it where to find your existing
core and binaries. I just built it on my P90 with 64 megs of RAM
without any problems. I have not tried using his packages for
compiling on other non-linux boxes tho.
> Still, that acts in POP's favour at the moment.
Pop does indeed seem to be easily buildable out of the box, once you
find the right sequence of commands. I have some patches to get it to
build on Debian (with no -ltermcap), and to accept #! acomments so you
can use it for shell scripting. Another thing that POP has going for
it is the excellent documentation. CMUCL regretably has very little
implmentation documentation, and so it's a nightmare trying to learn
how to rebuild, modify and maintain it, or port it.
--
Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
I say woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and yet
imprudent in 'dem outside -Sizzla
|