On 11/27/2012 07:02 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@opensuse.org> wrote:
I would add such a config option to sbcl package with the next version that is installed as a sample in the documentation along with a README file, and let the user decide how to use it.
Sorry, I did not get it. Why SBCL, and not CLISP or GCL or another compiler/interpreter? Why not CLC?
Simple I am one of the maintainers for sbcl but not for clisp, therefore I can add the asdf solution to sbcl easily. clisp maintainer needs to solve the problem if s/he wants also. All other mentioned are not available for factory so there is no need to discuss. Having said that feel free to package and submit them.
I did not send request, because I still not satisfied about quality and, as I said, I'm going to use quicklisp.
Hence this proves my concern, I would prefer to have quicklisp also, but on the other hand the guideline should take it into consideration what is available in the distribution not things available in users' home repositories.
Therefore I suggest you remove the parts regarding common-lisp-controller related parts from the guideline as they are not correct at the time being.
If I will implement Christian's idea about macro %lisp, then I will add it exactly to common-lisp-controller (as a system for installing Common Lisp libraries and source).
But.. until I am satisfied with the quality and logic of dependencies, I will not send any requests.
That is my point hence please remove the common-lisp-controller related part from the guideline. You just can't put something that does not exist in the main project into the guideline and ask people to follow the guideline.
Stumpwm, that I have already, works well, but I would like to make it cleaner and check/test it again. http://thefreecountry.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/stumpwm.png
I know Stumpwm but that is something else not related to the guidelines of common-lisp-packaging
I took stumpWM as example or as a test project, that will use Lisp rules/guidelines which we are trying to discuss about. Why don't use new scripts or macros (adding to CLC) and test it on stumpWM?
Do what ever you want in your home repos, hey as a matter of fact you do not even have to follow the spec guidelines or use them as test bed for ideas. Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org