Programmer <[email protected]> wrote: > [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. > > > 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. > > 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.
CL developers use quicklisp, not the system CL libs. So, adding more ports requiring work and openbsd developers time for 0 benefits, that's a no-go. If a Common LISP program had to be ported and required porting common lisp libraries as dependencies to work, then, we would consider having CL libraries in the ports tree. Starting from the end, aka porting libraries, "just in case" we will need it in the future, would be wasted time. You can help by updating ecl, sbcl, clisp or stumpwm if you want to hack common lisp ports.
