Hi Debian CLISP maintainers, Hi Peter, I'm not sure if it has come to your attention that there was a GSoC project this year to make a new release of CLISP. This work is still going on, as you can see from the clisp-de...@lists.sourceforge.net mailing list. Now may be a good time IMHO -- still prior to the official release -- to check whether what's in the mercurial repository would build well on Debian systems and/or ask the mailing list for help if it does not. Hopefully that will allow whatever patches needed/recommended for Debian to be part of the official CLISP release. That would make a pleasant experience for users.
IIRC, some maintainer of another distribution (Fedora?) had patches accepted recently. There are a few things that I don't understand on the tracker page. It says "missing build on armel and armhf". However, I believe I've read about people using clisp on a Raspberry Pi. Doesn't it use armhf? Meanwhile, some bugs reported in the Debian BTS have been fixed recently in Mercurial, e.g. #724767, see https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/1b974200f7a89676741fadde07f084889408fe93/ It looks to me like several issues preventing builds of clisp actually arise from dependencies (libraries to which clisp modules provide an interface), e.g. ffi, db, gdbm. I believe it would be wise to re-evaluate today which modules are considered base-modules (part of the clisp package) and which optional modules should still be built or proposed in 2016. I don't know whether Debian wants to provide a different set of base modules than the upstream clisp. There was some discussion about which modules are most important back in March this year in the clisp-devel ML. Regards, Jörg Höhle _______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
