I think this is right on the mark. In regards to adding multiple directories to *contrib-dir* there was a patch submitted here a while ago that did this. I'll try to dig it up.
-E On 02/18/2014 09:29 AM, David Bjergaard wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Thanks for all of your thoughtful input. I think we/I might be > confusing some issues. > > To be crystal clear: Quicklisp *will not* be incorporated into stumpwm > core in any shape or form. Power users are free to use > quicklisp to load code in their stumpwmrc, but we will not require > stumpwm-core or modules to have quicklisp installed. > > Modules are currently imported with a call to (load), work needs to be > done to make current modules their own ASDF packages. Then they will be > loaded with a call to (asdf:load-system). The end users will still load > stump extensions with (load-module "blah"). > > With these operating points, debating the use of quicklisp doesn't make > sense. Quicklisp is a method for obtaining lisp source code. > > How you get your source code shouldn't matter to stumpwm, you should be > able to add multiple directories to *contrib-dir* the same way you add > directories to emacs' load-path. I think that this is the most flexible > way we can support extensions from multiple sources (different linux > distros, quicklisp, git repos, or even tarballs from an author's > website). > > This debate is getting a little far from the original point: decouple > contrib from stumpwm core so that module developers can have their code > used independent of the stumpwm development cycle. > > I apologize if I've mislead anyone, I'm still learning the particulars > of quicklisp, asdf, and stumpwm in parallel. I hope everyone agrees on > the above points so we can move forward and "hack the good hack." > > Cheers, > > Dave > > "J. David Smith" <emall...@archlinux.us> writes: > >> I think most novice users will be pulling things in from a package >> manager if they are able to on their distro. >> >> If the distro doesn't have a quicklisp package, it would make sense to >> create one and have it pulled in automatically. After all, quicklisp >> *is* a dependency. It makes sense to use a system designed to handle >> that (package manager) to deal with it. >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Michael Raskin <38a93...@rambler.ru> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >So just to be clear: we should totally use ASDF, and using ASDF >> is >> >enough for quicklisp. I think quicklisp is a good thing, and I >> think >> >that all or most of the *current* hard core stump users are also >> >quicklisp users. That's great. I just want to make sure that when >> we >> >design the workflow for installing contrib modules we have >> something >> >that makes sense for users who aren't necessarily like us. >> > >> >(I think the emacs analogy is decent. And to be fair, I compile >> emacs >> >myself, from sources but I don't expect that other people will do >> the >> >same.) >> >> >> May I ask a simple question? >> >> Can't we build QuickLisp into the StumpWM binary for novice users? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
