On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:38:40 -0700, Andreas Davour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Luke Crook wrote: > >> Luke Crook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> >>> The latest official version of CFFI 0.10.0 has just been released. The >>> version of CFFI that lispbuilder-sdl uses (the asdf-install version) >>> is a >>> couple of years old. I'm going to try to migrate the lispbuilder-sdl* >>> packages to this latest version. >>> >> >> The only issue I have found with the latest version of CFFI is that >> CFFI has a >> list of dependencies whereas before this release it had none. Otherwise >> it >> seems to work with lispbuilder-sdl just fine. > > I just took a look at the depenencies, and I didn't know what to think. > I guess you have heard the latest commotion in the blogsphere about how > lisp lacks libraries? Seeing this I think it has way to many. How are > you supposed to manage all those small minuscule packages you need?! > > Sorry, I just had to rant a bit. I'm all for reusing existing code and so I consider dependencies a good thing. You hit the nail on the head with your rant on package management. (1) There needs to be an easy way to install dependencies on Win32, and (2) Managing conflicts when two packages rely on different versions of the same dependency. For (1), I want to extend what I did for lispbuilder-sdl & trivial-garbage, and distribute all lispbuilder-sdl dependencies within the lispbuilder-sdl tarball (including CFFI and its dependencies). (2) is tricky as there is no central focus in the Lisp world pushing package maintainers to maintain compatibility with the latest release of dependency 'n'. Much worse is that Lisp maintainers for some packages do not make 'official' releases very often, forcing users to sync with whatever is HEAD in source control at that time. This happens in lispbuilder-sdl. We remain in SVN for way too long, but use a couple of years out of date version of CFFI from the Cliki because it is ASDF-INSTALL'able. Any user who used lispbuilder-sdl in conjunction with a package that relied on functionality in the HEAD version of CFFI could have run into problems. - Luke _______________________________________________ application-builder mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/application-builder
