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

[Eric Abrahamsen]

"Diogo F. S. Ramos" <address@hidden> writes:

>> I think the packaging discussion is larger and more expansive than the
>> discussion about contrib (and we don't have to solve all the pieces of
>> packaging now,) but I want to make sure that there's a path for people
>> who use stump but *don't* have quicklisp installed to be able to access
>> some of contrib (particularly if contrib ends up containing a
>> significant amount of Stump functionality.)
>
> I too would like to not have quicklisp as dependency for modules.
>
> I'm not a CL expert, so please help, but for the modules themselves, we
> can use CL's package system so each module declares a package to live
> in, so there is no symbol clashing.  We can even say that each module
> package name should start with `stumpwm/' or something, so we can
> differentiate StumpWM modules from other packages that are loaded in the
> same Lisp environment.
>
> As was mentioned earlier, if we want to track dependencies, we can
> leverage ASDF and let it deal with it for us.  Now, a StumpWM module has
> at least two files: module.asd and module.lisp.
>
> So my points are:
>
> 1. Don't have quicklisp as a dependency
> 2. Each module define a package
> 3. Use ASDF for dependency checking

Even if we do want to leave the door open for quicklisp as a
possibility, that too would require creating module.asd package files.
Seems like doing that for existing modules would be a reasonable first
practical step.