On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:06:27AM +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 00:42, Peter Van Eynde <pvane...@debian.org> wrote: > > > I'm all in favor of your work and I think that you are doing the right > > thing, but I'm missing the following: > > > > - documenting what lisp packages should do > > - documenting what lisp implementation should do > > - documenting how users can use this > > - documenting how DM/DD can test their packages > > and > > - no breaking other packages > > First of all, please read this: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.alioth.common-lisp/2616/ > > > Related: I wanted to investigate how the 'new' clc is supposed to work, > > but I've noticed that the > > /usr/share/doc/common-lisp-controller/DESIGN.txt > > and > > /usr/share/doc/common-lisp-controller/NEWS.Debian.gz > > don't mention this new redesign. What do I need to do? How to I test this? > > I have updated README.Debian in dh-lisp, but c-l-c not yet. > > I plan to upload new c-l-c once all existing implementations no longer > depend on it. > > > Why did you select this method? Given the fact that as I understand it > > updated implementations should only depend on cl-asdf, if at all, what > > is the role of dh_lisp in new implementations and why on purpose break > > all older implementations? > > Most of implementations already have asdf2 internally. They don't > need to depend on cl-asdf. Of cource, user may install cl-asdf, this > will implement hot-upgrading for asdf. > > The original purpose of dh-lisp is to install c-l-c into images of the > implementations. Now it's useless. Please consider removing dh-lisp > from all common lisp implementations and redebianizing them.
Does this mean that this bug report really belongs to clisp? -- Agustin _______________________________________________ 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
