> * Sébastien Villemot <fronfg...@qrovna.bet> [2018-01-12 12:30:26 +0100]: > >> >> What if a user has installed xindy, with clisp as dependency, and then >> upgrades >> clisp to a different version, with a different mem-hash? >> 1) Will the package manager report a conflict? > > Yes. > >> 2) Will the package manager propose, as solution of this conflict, to >> install >> another binary package for xindy? Or will it only propose to remove >> xindy? > > Only two options will be available: > 1) either upgrade clisp and xindy together > 2) or do not upgrade any of them
What about including the xindy FAS files in the distribution? FAS files are plain text ASCII files and compress well. One can even concatenate them (in the right order) and gzip. Then upgrading CLISP would mean re-dumping the lisp image (MEM): clisp -i xindy.fas -x '(saveinitmem "xindy.mem")' (Another alternative is distribute an executable image with xindy. This way it no longer depends on the version of the current CLISP installation.) In my experience lisp image portability is nil. There is very little chance that any effort will ever be saved by upgrading CLISP and checking that the existing image is compatible with the new CLISP. It is safer and cleaner to _always_ re-dump the MEM file from FAS.gz distributed with the package. I think this is what Bruno meant by his ls.so analogy. Thanks. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on darwin Ns 10.3.1561 http://steingoldpsychology.com http://www.childpsy.net https://jihadwatch.org http://mideasttruth.com http://honestreporting.com http://camera.org -Nervous? -Yes! -First time? -No, I've been nervous before!
