Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (266 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Common LIsp packaging
On 11/26/2012 07:57 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/20/2012 12:14 AM, Alex Naumov wrote:

Yes, good idea, but we have not such macro file for Lisp until now.
And the question is... where we can add it?
For perl or python it's easy, because we put it to package of
interpreter: perl or python-base, but for Common Lisp there are
different interpreters/compilers implementation. For example, clisp or
sbcl.
.......

Now I'm curious if you also get feedback from people who know something
about Lisp ;-)

I'm waiting critic about using ASDF ;-)

Or maybe let the lisp implementation to have a initialization file and
solve the fasl problem via that. (see sbcl documentation about FASL
Format). Currently sbcl in the factory does not have a system wide
initialization, but could be added if needed.


Yes, it will solve the problem in case using SBCL, but what's about
another Lisp interpreters?

Do you want to use SBCL as a main compiler, that should be installed always?

I do not like to force an enduser to some package based on packager wishes.

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.


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Before putting common-lisp-controller as a requriment how about
providing the package.

Maintainer needed? ;-)

Submit it to a devel project and see how it goes on thereafter.

If one builds a package based on this sample spec
it sure will fail as there is no such package and having it in your home
project does not count to have it in a guideline for the entire project.


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.


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

Togan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups