On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:53:16 +0100 [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > Andy Patterson <[email protected]> skribis: > > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:43:23 +0100 > > [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > > > >> [email protected] (宋文武) skribis: > >> > >> > Toni Reina <[email protected]> writes: > >> > > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> I'm trying to install `sbcl-stumpwm` package and looks like it > >> >> doesn't work correctly. It's installed with no errors, but it > >> >> doesn't generate the stumpwm binary file. > >> >> > >> >> The following package will be installed: > >> >> sbcl-stumpwm > >> >> 0.9.9 /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.9.9 > >> >> > >> >> ls /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.9.9 > >> >> -> lib share > >> >> > >> > > >> > It's in the "bin" output of sbcl-stumpwm package, you can get it > >> > with: > >> > > >> > guix package -i sbcl-stumpwm:bin > >> > >> It might be clearer to have an “out” and a “lib” output (instead of > >> “bin” and “out”). WDYT, Andy & 宋文武? > > > > I think that would basically shift the awkwardness from package > > installation over to package development, since it would then be > > required that all dependants of stumpwm use the lib output in the > > inputs field (but only on sbcl? - since ecl binaries aren't > > supported just yet). > > OK but there’s only one dependent: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ guix refresh -l sbcl-stumpwm > A single dependent package: sbcl-stumpwm-with-slynk-0.9.9 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > So I think it would be preferable to do it the way I suggest, no? >
Sure, I agree. Packages which have a program built are more likely to be leaves, after all. Since there haven't been other replies, I think we've reached a consensus. I'll work to roll this into other updates in the Lisp packaging area, and report back. -- Andy
