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

[David Bjergaard]

Hi All,

Since our model of modules is settling down, I think we should freeze
the discussion and implement the pieces proposed so far.  I will start
this when I get time, but I'm open to a pull requests. :)

Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:

> [...]
> Quicklisp has the concepts of "dists", which I don't claim to understand
> completely, but looks like it might be what we want: a discrete
> "ecosystem" of packages. Since these modules will be meaningless except
> for stumpwm users, it might make sense to have a separate stumpwm dist,
> with its own dependency structure. Creating dists doesn't seem to be
> documented at the moment, but it would be interesting to know what's
> involved.
I agree that dists may be the way to go, the trouble is, there is no
good documentation and I don't have time to dig through the sources to
figure it out (I did a little research, but didn't get anywhere
concrete).  Further, we would need our modules to be packaged for
quicklisp before we could make a dist out of them.  In conclusion I
think we should start with the proposed solution, and then move to dists
down the road.
> [...]

Cheers,

    Dave