[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [STUMP] Dependencies
From: |
Alex Kost |
Subject: |
Re: [STUMP] Dependencies |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:28:57 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux) |
Dimitri Minaev (2016-11-02 11:16 +0400) wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 11:12 PM, David Bjergaard wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> When I first started maintaining stumpwm, I was interested in knowing if
>> people
>> were OK with extra dependencies in stumpwm. This was before quicklisp was as
>> popular as it is now, and the build prescription didn't even mention it.
>>
>> Things have changed now, and there have been a handful of contributions that
>> change the way stumpwm handles its internal loop. There are also many, many
>> places where stumpwm re-invents the wheel for the sake of keeping
>> dependencies
>> to a minimum. The arguments for minimal dependencies are/were:
>> 1. Less overhead for compiling (especially those unfamiliar with lisp
>> development)
>> 2. Less dependence on upstream changes that break their interface
>> 3. Smaller dependencies -> greater freedom to run on multiple lisp flavors
>> 4. Lower dependencies make it easier for distro managers to package and ship
>> stumpwm outside of quicklisp/compiling with make
>
> Do you think it's feasible (both legally and technically) to include
> well tested versions of the dependencies into the Stumpwm source tree?
> Some extra efforts required from the maintainer will prevent dependency
> bloat :)
Oh no! Bundling third-party libraries is awful, please don't do it!
--
Alex