"Diogo F. S. Ramos" <d...@riseup.net> writes: >> I think the packaging discussion is larger and more expansive than the >> discussion about contrib (and we don't have to solve all the pieces of >> packaging now,) but I want to make sure that there's a path for people >> who use stump but *don't* have quicklisp installed to be able to access >> some of contrib (particularly if contrib ends up containing a >> significant amount of Stump functionality.) > > I too would like to not have quicklisp as dependency for modules. > > I'm not a CL expert, so please help, but for the modules themselves, we > can use CL's package system so each module declares a package to live > in, so there is no symbol clashing. We can even say that each module > package name should start with `stumpwm/' or something, so we can > differentiate StumpWM modules from other packages that are loaded in the > same Lisp environment. > > As was mentioned earlier, if we want to track dependencies, we can > leverage ASDF and let it deal with it for us. Now, a StumpWM module has > at least two files: module.asd and module.lisp. > > So my points are: > > 1. Don't have quicklisp as a dependency > 2. Each module define a package > 3. Use ASDF for dependency checking
Even if we do want to leave the door open for quicklisp as a possibility, that too would require creating module.asd package files. Seems like doing that for existing modules would be a reasonable first practical step. _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
