Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (266 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Common LIsp packaging
On 11/27/2012 07:02 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Togan Muftuoglu <toganm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >