On 3 August 2010 12:12, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > To survive with minimal modifications to existing software, I recommend that: > > * we modify dh-lisp to *NOT* create a dependency on c-l-c for source packages, > only for binary packages. I mean lisp source packages vs lisp implementation packages. So cl-ppcre would not depend on clc, but sbcl would continue depending on it for the time being.
> * we re-package a cl-asdf 2:2.004-2 with this new dh-lisp. > * now c-l-c depends on cl-asdf but not the other way around. > > Indeed, the dh-lisp created packages post-install scripts: > * check whether c-l-c is installed, and do nothing if it is not. > * therefore do not really depend on c-l-c > In the long run, my proposal is to: > * get wholly rid of c-l-c and dh-lisp > * just make sure that (require :asdf) will work on all lisps, > possibly depending on cl-asdf at build time to include a precompiled > version of the latest packaged asdf, when asdf isn't already > provided by the implementation (clisp?). And of course, it's better to work upstream to have ASDF2 included everywhere rather than to make it a special Debian thing. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." — Mark Twain _______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
