Dimitri Minaev (2016-11-02 11:16 +0400) wrote: > 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 :)
Oh no! Bundling third-party libraries is awful, please don't do it! -- Alex _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
