Kevin Kofler:
> Ouch, we weren't aware of all these issues when we approved common-lisp-
> controller in FESCo. :-( It was "sold" to us as something great and working
> perfectly. I wasn't aware that it didn't actually work at all at this time
> and I strongly doubt the rest of FESCo was either. It makes no sense to have
> a packaging guideline mandate using something which doesn't work.

Jerry James:
> The alternative to common-lisp-controller, for libraries at least, is
> to have lots of subpackages:...
> I can see why Debian went with
> common-lisp-controller .... It helps keep insanity at bay.

Common-lisp-controller would probably be very helpful for libraries if it *did* work.
But it appears that mandating it was premature.

Jerry James:
> But I think we need to have an escape clause for applications, and
> also for libraries that take a significant amount of time/space to
> compile.

No escape clause needed for applications.
The 2nd sentence of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp
"This document does not describe conventions and customs for application programs that are written in Common Lisp."

I think it should be backed down until it's *really* fixed
(awakening upstream as necessary).

--- David A. Wheeler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/09/2010 06:15 AM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> No escape clause needed for applications.
> The 2nd sentence of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp
> "This document does not describe conventions and customs for application programs that are written in Common Lisp."

This is contradicted by the headline, "Guidelines for Libraries and
Programs written in Common Lisp" [1].
Seems a bit unfinished probably..?

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp#Guidelines_for_Libraries_and_Progra ms_written_in_Common_Lisp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktK450ACgkQVTRddCFHw13xXwCgi+GY0cjGfo XtKfQZYR60iRIH
84QAn1l7kye7t/rvZtdvBg3AkSQXSjG0
=3OFf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/08/2010 04:32 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> It sounds like we should tell the Fedora Project Board that we are
> forming, and appoint someone to send them regular status reports. We
> should also tell the Packaging Committee that we have identified some
> problems with the current Lisp packaging guidelines and plan to submit
> revisions to those guidelines.
So according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects it's
our turn to state missions goals now for a CL SIG, right? I've collected
all links mentioned so far at my talk page in the wiki [1] and suggest
we start off with finding common denominators and stick to the project
definition guide - we shouldn't declare anything premature to the board.

I'll try to contribute as much as possible depending on my spare time.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_talk:Akahl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktK5ugACgkQVTRddCFHw11GTACeMA4fHBR4uC FKLO0mcPsSe/E5
nBwAn1F1BdHdKWgZxXf0JTY6EAkr6pjg
=mpq5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel