From: Benjamin L. <ben...@cm...> - 2010-03-29 02:46:17
|
Dear Steelbank, I'm setting up a couple new machines with SBCL. The machines are maintained in such a way that I can't install anything to /usr/local. If possible, I'd like to compile SBCL such that is looks for the core image in: /usr0/local/sbcl/lib It seems that editing this line: #define SBCL_HOME "/usr/local/lib/sbcl/" in this file: src/runtime/runtime.c does the job. Is it safe to modify this and compile? Or is there some alternate/preferred way to compile a different default? I know that we can just set the environment variable SBCL_HOME. But I'd like to avoid that if possible. Thanks, Ben Lambert -- Benjamin Lambert Ph.D. Student of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University www.cs.cmu.edu/~belamber Mobile: 617-869-1844 |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2010-03-29 07:49:04
|
On 29 March 2010 05:24, Benjamin Lambert <ben...@cm...> wrote: > in such a way that I can't install anything to /usr/local. If possible, I'd > like to compile SBCL such that is looks for the core image in: /usr0/local/sbcl/lib > It seems that editing this line: > #define SBCL_HOME "/usr/local/lib/sbcl/" > does the job. > Is it safe to modify this and compile? Or is there some alternate/preferred Yes, it's safe. Unfortunately there isn't a better way to configure the default core location at the moment. Cheers, -- Nikodemus |
From: Teemu L. <tli...@ik...> - 2010-03-29 12:59:49
|
* 2010-03-29 10:48 (+0300), Nikodemus Siivola wrote: >> It seems that editing this line: >> #define SBCL_HOME "/usr/local/lib/sbcl/" >> does the job. > >> Is it safe to modify this and compile? Or is there some >> alternate/preferred > > Yes, it's safe. Unfortunately there isn't a better way to configure > the default core location at the moment. I'm also one of those who would be happier if the default core location could be configured at compile time. But thanks for the info, I'll maintain a simple patch for now. |