Programmer <[email protected]> writes: > [email protected] (Timo Myyrä) writes: >> What would be the value of having library available as OpenBSD package >> instead >> of manually installing or using the Quicklisp package manager? > It would make Common Lisp development on the system easier, although I > understand if this isn't a priority or something that would be wanted > at all. >
Could you give example just how this would make development easier compared to using Quicklisp? >> In my experience there seems to be breaking changes in each update of >> Quicklisp >> already. I'd say that if you want to help Common Lisp ecosystem you should >> focus >> on Quicklisp and help the libraries themselves to work properly on OpenBSD. > It's my experience that Quicklisp isn't particularly good software and > I'd prefer to avoid it wherever possible. > I strongly disagree here, Quicklisp is best thing that has happened to Common Lisp and you haven't given any details what is wrong with it. But that talk doesn't really concern OpenBSD mailing list. > Solene Rapenne <[email protected]> writes: >>There is no point porting libraries if it's not used by a port. > You don't believe so even if only to make future ports easier? I'm > mostly interested in porting over the most common libraries or those > that provide integral functionality with no dependencies themselves. The ports development only has those libraries that are needed by some applications. It shouldn't be used to duplicate the languages own package manager. Timo
