Help adding options to formula #5385
Replies: 4 comments 1 reply
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Message ID: ***@***.***>Well, drat. What's the play, then? Will I really have to create my own tap, even if I can get @ashinn on board? Or is there another tapped-by-default index where options are allowed?
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
FWIW, the defaults for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Of course, I’m not talking about changing the _defaults_ — I'm talking about adding package options to this specific formula. Personally, the included modules will be plenty for my purposes, and I have no desire to run my code on another interpreter; but I agree, the defaults should minimise headaches.
I mentioned getting you on board because, if options aren’t allowed where the package is now, then an alternate package with options will need to be somewhere else; no way was I going to ask you to move it into a tap, but moving it somewhere that didn’t need to be tapped might have been on the table.
(Also re. aligned bytecode, I’m indifferent to the default but I’ll explain my affinity for the option: from my understanding, even if an architecture can perform unaligned accesses, such accesses are typically slower and less predictable than aligned. I know the OCaml platform does not emit them for this reason.)
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Output of
brew config
Output of
brew doctor
Description of issue
The formula in question is
chibi-scheme
, which as of yet has no options so I'd have to add the whole option infrastructure from scratch, which I don't know how to do. It exposes a litany of compile options, but the only benefit of most of them is to reduce the binary size, which I don't think Homebrew users are all that worried about; however, there are some that impact semantics and performance, which could be a concern. The ones in particular that appeal to me are:Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions