[email protected] (Timo Myyrä) writes: > Could you give example just how this would make development easier compared to > using Quicklisp? It would be convenient to be able to start Common Lisp development from a fresh install and without fooling around with Quicklisp. I'd be using a trustworthy, secure, and well-written package manager instead.
> 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. It seems a bit odd to port over end-software just because I want the libraries present, but alright; I can start work on that. Solene Rapenne <[email protected]> writes: > 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. I don't use Quicklisp. Just because it's popular doesn't make it a standard. > 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. As above, alright. > You can help by updating ecl, sbcl, clisp or stumpwm if you want to hack > common > lisp ports. I can work on that as well. Is there a list of anything that needs to be done with regards to these anywhere? I would be interested in getting SBCL and friends to work under OpenBSD on the same platforms supported under GNU/Linux, so that's something I can start looking into, certainly.
