-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Milan,
Milan Zamazal wrote:
> Please note I'm unable to join right now, I hope I'll be able to start
> doing something in September or October. Please just don't remove nor
> orphan the package in the meantime.
Ok, no problem.
Groetjes, Pet
> "PVE" == Peter Van Eynde
> writes:
PVE> Do you want to take over completely or as part of the
PVE> 'packaging team'?
I prefer to keep slime formally under the packaging team.
Please note I'm unable to join right now, I hope I'll be able to start
doing something in September o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Milan and friends,
Milan Zamazal wrote:
> If you give up on the package and nobody wants it, I'll probably take it
> over. Not that I have any reason to suppose it would be less tricky for
> me, but SLIME is important enough to be available i
> "Milan" == Milan Zamazal writes:
Milan> The important thing is how much the released versions (whatever
Milan> the _release_ is) retain backward compatibility and whether they
Milan> are stable enough or the stable versions can be easily
Milan> identified. If most versions in SCM satisfy t
> "RS" == Rupert Swarbrick
> writes:
RS> Hmm, so as I said (somewhere in this thread), quite a few lisp
RS> libraries don't have "proper" releases, or the official releases
RS> lag so far behind the scm that they're pretty much irrelevant.
It is not that important whether th
Milan Zamazal writes:
> RS> I don't think that debian packages are a waste of time.
>
> It is not, the problem is who will do the work. I definitely prefer a
> small set of well working core CL packages over hundreds of obsolete CL
> packages in a poorly maintained state.
Well, I'm very ha
> "RS" == Rupert Swarbrick
> writes:
RS> I don't think that debian packages are a waste of time.
It is not, the problem is who will do the work. I definitely prefer a
small set of well working core CL packages over hundreds of obsolete CL
packages in a poorly maintained state.
> "CL" == Christian Lynbech writes:
CL> Is there any way non-DD's can help in the short term?
Maybe helping to fix open Debian bugs on packages that you are
interested in?
CL> Longer term, interested paties should of course sign up as DD's
Yes, please.
___
> "PVE" == Peter Van Eynde
> writes:
PVE> I also think that slime should go. Not that I don't think it is
PVE> good package that has its use, but because it is just so tricky
PVE> to maintain and I never have understood how to debug those
PVE> emacs bugs :-(.
If you give
> "Peter" == Peter Van Eynde writes:
Peter> You're right of course. We'll keep clc and 'native' libraries. But the
Peter> others should go.
Is there any way non-DD's can help in the short term?
We seem to be several ready to help out.
Longer term, interested paties should of course sign u
Peter Van Eynde
writes:
>> I will be there and can try to stir some thing up if need be.
>>
>> Also, I would be willing to help out with packages (though I am not
>> currently a Debian Developer).
>
> Honestly I get the impression that few people care about the packages.
> Most implementations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello Christian,
How is Castafiore doing? Could you revive her?
Christian Lynbech wrote:
> Would there be any point in discussing this at next months European
> Common Lisp meeting?
I fear that I won't be there.
The 'next' conference that I will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello all,
Milan Zamazal wrote:
> I'm a DD interested in CL. I maintain (although not very actively) a
> few Debian CL packages and I'm not going to give up on them, so I need
> at least common-lisp-controller (in addition to CL implementations) in
I'm a DD interested in CL. I maintain (although not very actively) a
few Debian CL packages and I'm not going to give up on them, so I need
at least common-lisp-controller (in addition to CL implementations) in
Debian.
I might consider to help more, but the main problem (what a surprise!)
is my R
I'm a DD interested in CL. I maintain (although not very actively) a
few Debian CL packages and I'm not going to give up on them, so I need
at least common-lisp-controller (in addition to CL implementations) in
Debian.
I might consider to help more, but the main problem (what a surprise!)
is my R
> "Peter" == Peter Van Eynde writes:
>> we go low impact and remove common-lisp-controller and all Common
>> Lisp libraries, and I/we only package the lisp implementations
>> (clisp, ecl, sbcl, cmucl and perhaps ccl) without any special changes
Would there be any point in discussing this at
Rupert Swarbrick wrote:
Peter Van Eynde
writes:
After some consideration I must conclude that the state of the Common
Lisp packages in Debian is becoming unreasonable. One of the goals of
forming the pkg-common-lisp team was that I would not be a
bottleneck, as RL is inflicting more and mor
Peter Van Eynde
writes:
>> After some consideration I must conclude that the state of the Common
>> Lisp packages in Debian is becoming unreasonable. One of the goals of
>> forming the pkg-common-lisp team was that I would not be a
>> bottleneck, as RL is inflicting more and more damage to my 'De
Hello Peter,
Peter Van Eynde wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> With regret I'll copy the message that I've put on my blog:
>
>> After some consideration I must conclude that the state of the Common Lisp
>> packages in Debian is becoming unreasonable. One of the goals of forming the
>> pkg-common-lisp tea
19 matches
Mail list logo
