Re: Scsh on 64-bit systems

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:00:06AM +0800, Ebzzry wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:51:10PM +0800, Ebzzry wrote:
>>>> Thank you for Scsh. I've been using it for quite some time now  and it
>>>> is one tool that I always have wherever I go.
>>>>
>>>> However, when I migrated to a newer system, I found that I can longer
>>>> use Scsh the way it was before: x86_64 systems. I have been able to
>>>> use Scsh inside a chroot and use some wrappers, but I'm not able to
>>>> run programs in the 64-bit environment, say for example via `run'.
>>>
>>> Short of chrooting, there are two ways to run scsh on AMD64:
>>>
>>> 1) you build scsh on a 32-bit system, change the relevant constants,
>>> then rebuild the bootstrapping C code.  From there, you can prepare a
>>> patch for the original tarball that changes it from assuming 32-bit to
>>> assuming 64-bit.  I believe Taylor Campbell has done work on this.
>>
>> OK. Do you have any links on how to do that?
>
> Sorry, no.  Ask "Riastradh" on #scheme on irc.freenode.net.
>
>>> 2) you abuse AMD64's biarch support to run a 32-bit image.  This
>>>   basically means installing the appropriate 32-bit libraries and
>>>   cross-compiler, then building with -m32 in CFLAGS.
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>   Note that this approach does not work for all 64-bit systems!  Some
>>>   other 64-bit architectures do not have biarch support.
>>>
>>>   Here is the code I use to generate Debian scsh packages for AMD64.
>>
>> OK. I'm using Debian too. Are these packages placed somewhere?
>
> Nope.  I'm the Debian package maintainer for scheme48, but I never got
> around to adopting scsh.  Nowadays I avoid both because the tiny
> mindshare makes it impossible to get anything done without first
> writing half-a-dozen libraries, and that's a maintenance burden I
> can't afford.
>
> Instead I'm desperately trying to bootstrap my Haskell skills to a
> point where they're suitable for production use.
>

OK. Thanks for replying.

-- 
Rommel M. Martinez
[email protected]
http://www.bespin.org/~ebzzry