David Bjergaard <dbjerga...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi All, > > Since our model of modules is settling down, I think we should freeze > the discussion and implement the pieces proposed so far. I will start > this when I get time, but I'm open to a pull requests. :) > > Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: > >> [...] >> Quicklisp has the concepts of "dists", which I don't claim to understand >> completely, but looks like it might be what we want: a discrete >> "ecosystem" of packages. Since these modules will be meaningless except >> for stumpwm users, it might make sense to have a separate stumpwm dist, >> with its own dependency structure. Creating dists doesn't seem to be >> documented at the moment, but it would be interesting to know what's >> involved. > I agree that dists may be the way to go, the trouble is, there is no > good documentation and I don't have time to dig through the sources to > figure it out (I did a little research, but didn't get anywhere > concrete). Further, we would need our modules to be packaged for > quicklisp before we could make a dist out of them. In conclusion I > think we should start with the proposed solution, and then move to dists > down the road.
I'd be happy to try contacting Zach Beane and seeing if he wanted to shed some light on the process. I agree it's not worth waiting for, and we should keep it as a middle-future possibility, but I'd be willing to do some exploring and see what's feasible. Eric _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
