On 11/01/2016 11:12 PM, David Bjergaard wrote: > Hi All, > > When I first started maintaining stumpwm, I was interested in knowing if > people > were OK with extra dependencies in stumpwm. This was before quicklisp was as > popular as it is now, and the build prescription didn't even mention it. > > Things have changed now, and there have been a handful of contributions that > change the way stumpwm handles its internal loop. There are also many, many > places where stumpwm re-invents the wheel for the sake of keeping dependencies > to a minimum. The arguments for minimal dependencies are/were: > 1. Less overhead for compiling (especially those unfamiliar with lisp > development) > 2. Less dependence on upstream changes that break their interface > 3. Smaller dependencies -> greater freedom to run on multiple lisp flavors > 4. Lower dependencies make it easier for distro managers to package and ship > stumpwm outside of quicklisp/compiling with make
Do you think it's feasible (both legally and technically) to include well tested versions of the dependencies into the Stumpwm source tree? Some extra efforts required from the maintainer will prevent dependency bloat :) _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
