IRC channel logs

<ArneBab>it’s (now) valid HTML 3.2: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdraketo.de%2Fproj%2Fwisp%2Fsrfi-from-template.html

<ArneBab>Do you think I should add more people to acknowledgements?

<ijp>just the usual people: jesus, buddha, marlon brando, etc.

<cky>.oO(But why in $DEITY's green earth would people use HTML3.2?!)

<cky>Like, even HTML4 is as old as R5RS itself.

<cky>(Actually, it's older than R5RS, having been ratified in December 1997.)

<ArneBab>cky: because the SRFI process mandates HTML 3.2

<cky>I'm scared. :-O

<ArneBab>how old is the SRFI process?

<ArneBab>also everything can display HTML 3.2 correctly. It does not have style sheets.

<ArneBab>and no Javascript

<drdanmaku>haha, no stylesheets, no javascript

<drdanmaku>i'm liking this already

<ArneBab>strangely that was my feeling when I wrote it - it reminded me of the time when I used HTML as a document markup language for my own writing. Roughly 14 years ago.

<ArneBab>(or rather: when I converted it from the org-mode export to HTML 3.2 - mostly stripping away all kinds of extra features)

<drdanmaku>back when html documents were, y'know, documents

<ArneBab>and the browser decided the colors

<drdanmaku>and the browser wasn't trying to be an application runtime

<ArneBab>but well - times are changing. And some of the semantic HTML 5 markup elements actually seem quite nice.

<jralls>What does 'bad header on object file: "GOOF----LE-4-2.0"' mean?

<ijp>it probably means you are using a .go file from one guile version that doesn't work on another

<ijp>are you building guile from master?

<jralls>ijp: No. It's actually a GnuCash user who's tried to build the latest release on Ubuntu.

<jralls> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=741924

<jralls>His config.log shows Guile-2.0.11, with no Guile 1.8 installed.

<ijp>1.8 didn't do compilation anyway, so that wouldn't be a problem

<ijp>2.2 is pretty different though, so that's what sprung to mind

<jralls>GC

<jralls>GC's configure doesn't test for Guile2.2. Maybe he has that too.

<ijp>I don't see why they would be running master, but it doesn't hurt to ask

<jralls>Heh. It's Ubuntu. Bleeding edge are them.

<ijp>hmm, but no, then I'd expect the cookie to say 2.2

<ijp>ah no, that would be if the gnucash file was compiled on 2.2, not if they were running 22

<ijp>jralls: they'd need to install it themselves, since there hasn't been a 2.2 release

<jralls>Well, I wouldn't put it past Ubuntu to package from git, but it does seem unlikely. What other possible causes of that error? FWIW I tested on Debian Jessie and had no problem.

<ijp>well, the only way you can get that error is if you try to use .go files whose cookie doesn't match the guile you are using

<ijp>e.g. different endianness

<jralls>Hmm, different endianness seems unlikely these days unless one is using old Apple hardware. And he built GC, and therefore compiled the scheme files, on the machine with the problem.

<jralls>Is it only a cookie check or might the compiled header have gotten damaged some other way?

<ijp>just a cookie check

<ijp>verify_cookie in objcodes.c

<ijp>oh wait no, silly me. make_objcode_from_file

<ijp>FUNC_NAME being the "official" one, for error purposes

<jralls>Hmm, maybe I misinterpreted the report. He says he installed from the package, so the build log he linked is the packager's machine, not his.

<ijp>there shouldn't be much degrees of freedom, but if there was a conflict between the two, that would be causing it

<jralls>ISTM the easiest thing for him to do is to delete the go files and let whatever Guile he's got rebuild them when he starts up.

<ijp>I can't see how to display it from guile, but the cookie format is GOOF----$ENDIANNESS-$WORD_SIZE-$VERSION

<jralls>Does Guile care about word size? If built on a 64-bit machine would it fail on a 32-bit one (assuming one could find one somewhere besides a museum and my house...)?

<ijp>guile cares

<jralls>Strings foo.go | head shows the signature easily enough.

<jralls>ijp: What about the reverse? The signature is LE-4-2.0, so he built it with 32-bit Guile. Will 64-bit Guile choke on that?

<ijp>yes

<ijp>I don't know enough about why guile couldn't handle it, but the cookie check would fail, and error

<ijp>the only thing it's liberal about is using a lower minor version

<jralls>OK, then that's likely the problem. The build log says "amd64", so the packager screwed up and built it with a Guile compiled for 32 bits.

<mark_weaver>is it just me, or are most of GNU's sites down? e.g. the web site and savannah

<ijp> http://isup.me/gnu.org

<ijp>"It's not just you! http://gnu.org looks down from here."

<mark_weaver>thx :)

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~

<cky>jralls: ARM is big-endian too.

<cky>Oh wait, ARM apparently supports both.

<nalaginrut>cky: yes, both

<cky>:-D

<dsmith-work>Wednesday Greetings, Guilers

<ArneBab>mark_weaver: this is the version of the wisp SRFI I’d like to send to srfi.schemers.org (ideally today). Do you want to give some last minute comments? http://draketo.de/proj/wisp/srfi-from-template.html

<nalaginrut>ArneBab: oh I hate HTML3.2

<ArneBab>nalaginrut: it’s not so bad - the essential features are there

<ArneBab>I now sent the SRFI to the srfi editors. Let’s see whether it actually becomes a christmaas SRFI ☺

IRC channel logs

2014-12-24.log