On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Sebastian Tennant <seb...@smolny.plus.com> wrote: > > Lesson: Don't consider an idea a good one until you've slept on it and woken > up > stil thinking it's good. > > Perhaps not everything I proposed yesterday is nonsense, but the idea of > maintaining a one-to-one correspondence between binary ql-* packages and > individual Quicklisp libraries is the stuff of dreams...
I agree. I also started feeling that ql-* packages would be a burden I wasn't sure would be worth bearing. > No, on second thoughts, using Quicklisp in conjunction with dpkg is simply not > workable other than to install a single package (cl-quicklisp) which perhaps > provides administrators with a script for performing site-wide Quicklisp > operations (as demonstrated) and users with a script for querying the state of > site-wide Quicklisp libraries, and is a Debian package that provides nothing > in > the way of dpkg dependency handling really very useful? What you describe is basically the expectation I've been having about the package. Would it be useful still? Well, I think so, if only to give Quicklisp a proper status of citizen in Debian. I recall my feelings when reading the Quicklisp setup instructions the first time, realizing that libraries are all user-only and that no package for it was available, not even in sid. I didn't even wanted to try it at first, until I found the hard way that sticking only to what was officially debianized wasn't representative of the possibilites already available from the CL community. I could have given up trying Lisp if it weren't for the copious recommendations of Quicklisp you find here and there on the web. > The only other option is an automated process by which a functional subset of > Quicklisp projects are converted (upstream) to standalone Debian packages > complete with the same dependency information. This is a non-trivial task to > say the least, something only experienced Debian packaging wizzards should > even > consider! I've also thought about this option, specially due to the shortcomings of Quicklisp when compared wtih dpkg (e.g. no package descriptions! and not able to express dependencies on foreign, non-Lisp libraries either). But yes, this definitely can't be something to be considered in a first try. I'm still not done going over the other materials you've posted, so I'll be replying later about them. Cheers, -- Paulo _______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
