chicken-scheme: new version 5.4.0 #25007

jpellegrini · 2024-09-21T12:20:12Z

Maintainer: @jpellegrini
Compile tested: x86, master, GCC 13
Run tested: MIPS, Netgear WNDR3800, OpenWRT 23.05.4, used the Chicken compiler and interpreter in the target. The binaries csc, chicken-install, chicken-status have been verified to work. Dynamically loading libraries, both from the interpreter and from compiled programs, works.
Patches: A patch is included in order to get the compiler (csc) to work properly on the target device (comment in the OpenWRT package Makefile).

About the patch:

Chicken includes an interpreter and also a compiler, "csc" which calls gcc.

The Chicken build system will dynamically build the file chicken-config.h, and for OpenWRT this is done inside the buildroot. But then, the values in that file are hardcoded into the csc binary, and they don't work well in the target device:

-ldl is passed to ld
-fmacro-prefix-map=... is passed to gcc, with the original path from the buildroot.

These two will not work on OpenWRT (and are not needed anyway), so the patch included actually modifies the build system to remove those two flags. Then csc works on the target device!

jpellegrini · 2024-09-21T13:00:14Z

The test build failed claiming I included a binary patch - but the patch I included actually only changes the build system. What should I do now?

jpellegrini · 2024-09-21T13:11:33Z

the patch I included actually only changes the build system

Which is not a conventional one (it's not a configure-make-make install system). The file patched is not Makefile, Makefile.am or configure.ac... But it's part of the build system (a header, chicken-config.h is written during the compilation process, but it will get confused in the build system and make the compiler try to use, on the target, flags that only make sense in the host -- so my patch changes the script to remove those)

lang/chicken-scheme/Makefile

BKPepe · 2024-09-21T15:53:15Z

lang/chicken-scheme/patches/00.build

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+diff -Nur chicken-5.4.0/defaults.make chicken-5.4.0-new/defaults.make


1st) Have you check how other patches in this repository looks like?
That would provide you answers that you are looking for.
2nd) Why do we need to carry this patch in downstream?

Ah, ok.

Didn't think the first line would make a difference; I've removed it.

I don't understand the question. Do you mean I should include an explanation of why it's needed, in the PR? I will do that.

Didn't think the first line would make a difference; I've removed it.

Indeed, it doesn't make a difference when compiling the package... It only shows up when the test bot looks at it (?).

I will do that.

Done!

I havent said anything about the first line.

I havent said anything about the first line.

I don't get it. I have run, locally,

make package/chicken-scheme/clean make package/chicken-scheme/refresh

and it all works fine (no errors, returns status zero). But when the PR goes through the tests, it complains about dirty patches.

It seems that here (my notebook), in the second time it goes through the patch, all is fine:

Applying patch 00.build patching file defaults.make Now at patch 00.build touch "/home/jeronimo/pkg/openwrt/build_dir/target-mips_24kc_musl/chicken-5.4.0/.quilt_checked" Applying patch 00.build patching file defaults.make Now at patch 00.build Patch 00.build is unchanged rm -rf /home/jeronimo/pkg/openwrt/package/chicken-scheme/patches 2>/dev/null >/dev/null

but during the automated tests,

Applying patch 00.build patching file defaults.make Now at patch 00.build touch "/builder/build_dir/target-aarch64_generic_musl/chicken-5.4.0/.quilt_checked" Applying patch 00.build patching file defaults.make Now at patch 00.build Refreshed patch 00.build rm -rf /feed/lang/chicken-scheme/patches 2>/dev/null >/dev/null

Why on my notebook it says "Patch 00.build is unchanged" but on github it says "Refreshed patch 00.build"?

This patch is quite obscure. Can it be avoided by passing the right values to make? I read the rest of the comments, but it's not 100% clear.

Hello!

This patch is quite obscure. Can it be avoided by passing the right values to make? I read the rest of the comments, but it's not 100% clear.

It can't be done via makefile... The original system assumes a lot of things about the target environment, and I tried hard to find a way to not patch it.

Chicken is a Scheme interpreter and compiler. csi is the interpreter, and csc is the compiler, which translates Scheme into C and calls gcc.

What the patch does is to remove -fmacro-prefix-map and -ldl in the strings that are passed to gcc when the Scheme compiler runs. Without that, the compiler will not run on the router.

I would like to still be able to use scheme in my router, and let others have that resource too :)
So there are these possibilities, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong):

keep the patch (including the above explanation in the commit message, and perhaps in the Makefile?)

remove the compiler and keep the interpreter only (but the compiler is used when installing new modules, which are downloaded in source form)

(would take some time) I'd be willing to package a different Scheme implementation, but several of them do not boostrap from scratch, and require a previous version of themselves installed -- so it complicates things a bit, but it's possible

What is preferable?

(I have been working on porting languages to OpenWRT as a personal project: https://gitlab.com/jpellegrini/openwrt-packages -- Algol, BASIC, Forth, Scheme... Even a text-based windowing system)

Maybe add a patch header with a short explanation for others.

Maybe add a patch header with a short explanation for others.

Okay! Also included the explanation in the commit message.

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-17T04:48:05Z

Looks like the patch could use a refresh.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-17T12:56:00Z

Looks like the patch could use a refresh.

Yes. I'll try to get this fixed in the next days.

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-18T15:34:36Z

Any reason why these are not in DEPENDS? EXTRA_DEPENDS are for specifying additional constrains, like a specific version, which these don't have.

EXTRA_DEPENDS:= gcc, coreutils-install

jpellegrini · 2025-11-18T15:41:10Z

Any reason why these are not in DEPENDS?

I'm not sure what that means -- I was actually going to investigate what the problem is.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-18T16:23:09Z

I'm not sure what that means -- I was actually going to investigate what the problem is.

I can't see why the build system is complaining. The only patch I included is lang/chicken-scheme/patches/00.build, which is:

--- a/defaults.make
+++ b/defaults.make
@@ -506,6 +506,11 @@
 endif
 	$(call echo, >>, $@,#endif)
 	$(call echo, >>, $@,/* END OF FILE */)
+	# For OpenWRT:
+	sed -e's/\-fmacro-prefix-map[^ ]*//' $@ > [email protected]
+	sed -e's/\-ldl//' [email protected] > [email protected]
+	cp [email protected] $@
+	rm [email protected] [email protected]
 
 chicken-install.rc:
 	$(call echo, >, $@,/* GENERATED */)

The patch includes some changes to a file in the sources, but it cleans after itself (rm [email protected] [email protected]). What else could be going on?

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-18T21:51:57Z

Did you try make package/chicken-scheme/refresh and pushing those changes? The CI is telling you that the patch can be refreshed, i.e. it's not properly formatted or doesn't apply cleanly.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-18T22:57:44Z

Did you try make package/chicken-scheme/refresh

Oooooh that's what was missing. Sure It changed one tiny difference in the patch, and it seems to work now (one of the previously failing tests already passed). Thank you!

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-19T12:26:59Z

Any reason why these are not in DEPENDS?

I'm not sure what that means -- I was actually going to investigate what the problem is.

If a package depends on something it should use DEPENDS and not EXTRA_DEPENDS, because you're not specifying additional i.e. extra constraints. Please change it.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-19T13:16:41Z

If a package depends on something it should use DEPENDS and not EXTRA_DEPENDS, because you're not specifying additional i.e. extra constraints. Please change it.

Ah ok. I just pushed it.

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-19T13:26:01Z

Also it looks like there's no CI test script - test.sh. Please add that as a separate commit, ideally before the version update one.

It should be something like:

#!/bin/sh

csc --version | grep -F "$2"

Assuming csc is the name of the binary and it has a --version flag.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-19T13:32:54Z

OK, will do later

jpellegrini · 2025-11-19T16:16:43Z

Also it looks like there's no CI test script - test.sh. Please add that as a separate commit, ideally before the version update one.

I'm sorry, I have reviewed https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-developer/start but couldn't find any reference to that. Where do I include such test file? Also, would it be a dummy test, or can I include a call to the package's test suite?

GeorgeSapkin · 2025-11-19T16:18:03Z

There is an example in my previous comment. It's just a script called test.sh in the root of the package, next to the Makefile. Check some other packages for inspiration.

jpellegrini · 2025-11-19T16:25:38Z

Added a simple CI test script. Will do better in a next version

lang/chicken-scheme/test.sh

It just checks the version for now... Signed-off-by: Jeronimo Pellegrini <[email protected]>

* New version. * A patch is included in order to get the compiler (csc) to work properly on the target device (comment in the OpenWRT package Makefile). csc, chicken-install, chicken-status have been verified to work. What the patch does is to remove -fmacro-prefix-map and -ldl in the strings that are passed to gcc when the Scheme compiler runs. Without that, the compiler will not run on the router. Signed-off-by: Jeronimo Pellegrini <[email protected]>

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from f7df437 to ec8cc69 Compare September 21, 2024 14:08

BKPepe reviewed Sep 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

lang/chicken-scheme/Makefile Show resolved Hide resolved

BKPepe reviewed Sep 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 766c100 to 823caf4 Compare September 21, 2024 16:56

BKPepe force-pushed the master branch from 823caf4 to d4329d6 Compare June 15, 2025 11:17

GeorgeSapkin force-pushed the master branch from d4329d6 to 98fb8b2 Compare November 17, 2025 04:44

GeorgeSapkin added Update package stale labels Nov 17, 2025

GeorgeSapkin added the needs work label Nov 17, 2025

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from 98fb8b2 to c2256e4 Compare November 17, 2025 12:48

GeorgeSapkin removed the stale label Nov 18, 2025

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from c2256e4 to e2fa3b2 Compare November 18, 2025 22:23

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from e2fa3b2 to c1f71c0 Compare November 19, 2025 13:15

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from c1f71c0 to e77326c Compare November 19, 2025 16:25

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from e77326c to df2495e Compare November 19, 2025 17:37

GeorgeSapkin reviewed Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

lang/chicken-scheme/test.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from b4488c3 to 3e9feab Compare November 20, 2025 00:18

chicken-scheme: add CI test script

b93ab9c

It just checks the version for now... Signed-off-by: Jeronimo Pellegrini <[email protected]>

GeorgeSapkin removed the needs work label Nov 20, 2025

GeorgeSapkin mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2025

treewide: fix EXTRA_DEPENDS #27908

Open

1 task

jpellegrini force-pushed the master branch from 3e9feab to db39e79 Compare November 20, 2025 13:43

		@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
		diff -Nur chicken-5.4.0/defaults.make chicken-5.4.0-new/defaults.make

chicken-scheme: new version 5.4.0 #25007

Are you sure you want to change the base?

chicken-scheme: new version 5.4.0 #25007

Uh oh!

Conversation

jpellegrini commented Sep 21, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Sep 21, 2024

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Sep 21, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

GeorgeSapkin commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

jpellegrini commented Nov 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

jpellegrini commented Sep 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jpellegrini commented Sep 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading