Re: Specifying private repository path for compiled executables

> I always thought those same distro guidelines also preferred to use
> centralized installation of dependencies.
> This also basically means you can only have one copy of each Python
> package installed.

Yes, this is correct as far as I know.

> Accepted best practices for Python software usually involves setting up
> a virtualenv and installing it locally in the directory of a project so
> you can control the exact python packages and don't run into dependency
> hell due to clashes with the system-wide package

I don't have much experience with Python, but I believe this is correct too.
However, the distinction between static and dynamic linking is orthogonal to
centralized/isolated software installation.

Also, the question arises: is the distribution of statically linked binaries the
accepted best practice for CHICKEN?

> @Alexey: Maybe this an acceptable solution for you after all?
It is an acceptable and currently employed solution, yes.

Some more things to consider:
1. Egg dynamic linking is already present, csc just lacks the ability to specify
path to eggs in compiled executables
2. Dynamic linking is currently the default mode of operation
3. Improving the capabilities of dynamic linking in such a way may also
improve CHICKEN's suitability as a system language, and in general improve
adoptability as a language of choice for someone's next project








On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 9:13 AM Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 07:08:01AM +0100, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Are we talking about the csc -static option? Doesn't this only link all
> > eggs statically, and not their foreign dependencies (libc, libsqlite3 etc)?
>
> Good point.  I was implicitly assuming we were talking fully static
> builds (ie, with -static -L -static).
>
> > From what I gather, even if you do csc -static, you'll get system updates
> > for foreign dependencies. Just not any automatic egg updates.
>
> I think you're right there.
>
> @Alexey: Maybe this an acceptable solution for you after all?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter