Re: guildhall status

[Andreas Rottmann]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I wanted to bootstrap the guildhall stuff, so last week I started poking
> at Andreas' excellent dorodango (http://www.nongnu.org/dorodango/).  I
> forked his repo on gitorious, removed a bunch of compat stuff for other
> implementations, imported dependencies into the archive, replaced the
> http stuff with Guile's (web) foo, and wired up a standard build system.
>
> The result is here:
>
>   https://gitorious.org/~wingo/dorodango/guildhall
>
> You can:
>
>   git clone git://gitorious.org/~wingo/dorodango/guildhall.git
>
> Then ./configure && make && make check.
>
> You will only be able to succeed there if you have (web client), which I
> have pushed to Guile's stable-2.0 branch.
>
> Wherever you see "doro" in the docs, replace it with "guild hall".
> Perhaps in the future we should drop the "hall", so "guild hall update"
> -> "guild update" or something.  Anyway, a thought for another time.
>
> So, the status:
>
>   1) Builds.
>   2) Passes make check.
>   3) Can update the available list.
>   4) Everything else is untested :-)
>
Cool!

> Next up:
>
>   1) Check status of dorodango functionality.
>   2) Fix things that don't work.
>   3) Profit?
>   4) Start thinking about hosting and accounts and UX and stuff.
>
> I will see if I can get work to sponsor a server that we can use, and
> see if we can get it aliased to guildhall.gnu.org -- unless someone else
> would like to provide the server.  It would be nice to have root on that
> server, FWIW.  It could be a VM.
>
> As far as relation with dorodango goes, we should do our best to keep
> the guildhall compatible with dorodango archives on the net.  We should
> also try hard to share code, but that is secondary.  Farther along I
> would like to rename (dorodango ...) in our source to (guildhall ...) or
> something so that we don't conflict with upstream.  I would also like to
> reduce the number of bundled dependencies, and for the ones that are
> left, include them under the (guildhall ...) namespace, making them
> effectively private.
>
+1; dorodango's dependencies are quite stable, so duplicating them in
the guidhall version should not be much of an issue.  As for reducing
their number, I've posted a mail with some ideas about how this could be
started off a while ago [0].  The thing that would be provide the most
benefit IMHO would be an interface to libzip, using Guile's dynamic FFI;
that would allow guildhall to get rid of industria as a dependency, and
speed up package installation quite a bit.  Also, this code could
eventually be folded back into dorodango, once spells' FFI is working on
Guile.  I'm in principle interested in working on a libzip interface,
but I'd rather get spells' FFI finished on Guile first.

>  That way you can also install dorodango on your
> machine, if you wish, and also install the wak- packages, industria,
> ocelotl, etc.
>
> I would really love for someone to take up this project.  I can help
> getting it to the minimally functional state.  Please let me know if you
> are interested.
>
Yeah, it would be cool if someone took care of this.  I can help with
any dorodango-related issues.

Regards, Rotty
-- 
Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>