On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 03:02, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
Your idea is nice. I agree to reduce the current complexity. I put my modifications in the 'next' branches of dh-lisp and c-l-c. Review them please. I am not going to merge them until other members agree with us. > >> 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. Could you give us a detailed proposal for discussion? We need more comments. _______________________________________________ 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
