Re: make check-exec-image failure

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

Hi Bruno,

> * Bruno Haible <oe...@py...t> [2017-03-11 00:54:35 +0100]:
>
>> > My priority for the moment is to fix build errors.
>> 
>> Does this include the "make check-image" failure?
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/687/
>
> No. (savemem ... :executable t) is based on
> spvw_memfile.d:savemem_with_runtime, which consists in *appending*
> a memory image to an *executable file*.

I know, I wrote it.

> I certainly won't spend time digging in the internals of the Mach-O
> object format in order to find out how to port this to Mac.

this is a regression on _all_ platforms.

> There is now a general move away from "pack everything into one file"
> to "create separate file for different purposes".

Users, nevertheless, do ask for a "single executable" option.

CLISP, being a developer's tool - as opposed to a user's tool, needs, in
addition to "vendor model" you describe: a team of seasoned
professionals building distributions to be used by many people, a
"custom exec" model, when a lisp hacker throws together a quick solution
and gives is to his 1 or 2 ad hoc users.

E.g., I want to run something on a box in which I cannot install anything.
An executable image - as opposed to two files (runtime + image) - is
easier to distribute.

Thanks.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 16.10 (yakkety) X 11.0.11804000
http://www.childpsy.net/ http://palestinefacts.org http://honestreporting.com
http://islamexposedonline.com http://www.dhimmitude.org http://ffii.org
A snake who stung your enemy is not necessarily your friend.