Re: Question about clisp version naming

[Ken Brown <kbrown at cornell dot edu>]

On 3/15/2015 2:19 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 13:37 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> > This sounds like a packaging error on my part.  First of all, lisp.dll
> > is new with the latest clisp; it was part of my solution to the dynamic
> > loading problem.  But from what you say, it sounds like I should put it
> > in /usr/bin.  In fact, I should rename it to cyglisp.dll, with a
> > corresponding /usr/lib/liblisp.dll.a, so that applications can link
> > against it with '-llisp'.  Would this solve the problem?
>
> I'm not all that familiar with clisp.  Is there a single binary that
> loads these dynamic modules, or multiple binaries?

The only user-visible binary is /usr/bin/clisp.exe.  This is essentially 
a wrapper that calls /usr/lib/clisp-2.49+/base/lisp.exe with suitable 
arguments.  The latter is linked against 
/usr/lib/clisp-2.49+/base/lisp.dll, as are all the modules.  The modules 
are simply DLLs that get loaded as needed via dlopen by the running 
lisp.exe process.  [Prior to the latest clisp release, there was no 
lisp.dll, so there was no way (AFAIK) to build the modules as DLLs.]

I thought this would all work fine because lisp.dll was in the same 
directory as lisp.exe.  And it does work fine for users of clisp.  But I 
didn't think about applications like Maxima that would need to link 
against lisp.dll.

I think my new proposal (with /usr/bin/cyglisp.dll and 
/usr/lib/liblisp.dll.a) will work better.  I don't know whether it's 
best to split off libclisp and clisp-devel subpackages.  Fedora has a 
separate clisp-devel package, but it contains a lot of files that are 
currently (and have always been) in the main clisp package on Cygwin. 
At the moment, it's probably a higher priority to get something in the 
distro that Achim can use to build Maxima.  But I'm open to suggestion 
on all of this.

Ken