Let me test portable-clx and stumpwm with CLISP on OpenBSD and Linux and see how that works.
I'm fine maintaining portable-clx for now because as you said there isn't that much work. I'd like to change portable-clx to use usocket when I have the time (that should also make it work on ECL). Would you mind if I set up a github repository for clx instead? I much prefer that to gitorious Happy hacking, Vladimir On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ben Spencer <dangerous....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 04:28:46PM -0500, Vladimir Sedach wrote: >> > [0] Actually, given that portable-clx is pretty much maintainerless >> > I've even considered having a 'blessed' version that we maintain >> > specifically for stumpwm. >> >> I think this is where the problem is. Do you want to try being >> co-maintainer with me? clx is something I was eventually planning to >> work on anyway. > > Well it sounds like neither of us have much time to spare, but > assuming it won't take up much, sure, let's give it a try. I have a > gitorious project for it at http://gitorious.org/clx that we could use > if you like. > > I'm not sure this solves the CLISP problem, but maybe we should just > go ahead and push that change and see if anybody complains. For one > thing it would bypass the long-running dynamic module issue and make > it easy to build CLISP binaries again. > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Stumpwm-devel mailing list > Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel > _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
