[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [STUMP] (sub-modules) / Contrib

From: Evan
Subject: Re: [STUMP] (sub-modules) / Contrib
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:42:15 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

I think this is right on the mark.

In regards to adding multiple directories to *contrib-dir* there was a
patch submitted here a while ago that did this. I'll try to dig it up.


On 02/18/2014 09:29 AM, David Bjergaard wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> Thanks for all of your thoughtful input.  I think we/I might be
> confusing some issues.  
> To be crystal clear: Quicklisp *will not* be incorporated into stumpwm
> core in any shape or form.  Power users are free to use
> quicklisp to load code in their stumpwmrc, but we will not require
> stumpwm-core or modules to have quicklisp installed.
> Modules are currently imported with a call to (load), work needs to be
> done to make current modules their own ASDF packages.  Then they will be
> loaded with a call to (asdf:load-system).  The end users will still load
> stump extensions with (load-module "blah").  
> With these operating points, debating the use of quicklisp doesn't make
> sense.  Quicklisp is a method for obtaining lisp source code. 
> How you get your source code shouldn't matter to stumpwm, you should be
> able to add multiple directories to *contrib-dir* the same way you add
> directories to emacs' load-path. I think that this is the most flexible
> way we can support extensions from multiple sources (different linux
> distros, quicklisp, git repos, or even tarballs from an author's
> website).
> This debate is getting a little far from the original point: decouple
> contrib from stumpwm core so that module developers can have their code
> used independent of the stumpwm development cycle.  
> I apologize if I've mislead anyone, I'm still learning the particulars
> of quicklisp, asdf, and stumpwm in parallel.  I hope everyone agrees on
> the above points so we can move forward and "hack the good hack." 
> Cheers,
>     Dave
> "J. David Smith" <address@hidden> writes:
>> I think most novice users will be pulling things in from a package
>> manager if they are able to on their distro.
>> If the distro doesn't have a quicklisp package, it would make sense to
>> create one and have it pulled in automatically. After all, quicklisp
>> *is* a dependency. It makes sense to use a system designed to handle
>> that (package manager) to deal with it.
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Michael Raskin <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >So just to be clear: we should totally use ASDF, and using ASDF
>>     is
>>     >enough for quicklisp. I think quicklisp is a good thing, and I
>>     think
>>     >that all or most of the *current* hard core stump users are also
>>     >quicklisp users. That's great. I just want to make sure that when
>>     we
>>     >design the workflow for installing contrib modules we have
>>     something
>>     >that makes sense for users who aren't necessarily like us.
>>     >
>>     >(I think the emacs analogy is decent. And to be fair, I compile
>>     emacs
>>     >myself, from sources but I don't expect that other people will do
>>     the
>>     >same.)
>>     May I ask a simple question?
>>     Can't we build QuickLisp into the StumpWM binary for novice users?
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>     address@hidden
> _______________________________________________
> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]