Hi Stefano! Cc:ing again the Debian Common Lisp mailing list, please keep it!
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:02:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Luca Capello wrote: >> FYI, as Aaron already showed with his list, ome packages (especially the >> "non-library" ones) do not have the cl-* suffix. StumpWM is missing, >> for example. > > Note that the current language-oriented sections (python, perl, and > the just proposed ocaml and ruby) are meant to contain stuff related > to "develop" in that language. They are not meant to contain > everything implemented in a given language. While I agree, this could pose a major problem for e.g. compilers: CLISP (or any other CL compiler) is used to "develop" CL applications *and* to start them. NB, you can create a CL "executable", but this will be a "snapshot" of the compiler, i.e. you start the compiler, then load your application and finally save the status as an image, which can then be loaded as a stand-alone "executable". However, some CL compilers (e.g. GCL and ECL) can produce real executables. > While it is quite clear that we are rapidly approaching the inherent > problem of sections (i.e., they cannot be orthogonal), I believe that > the above rule is quite agreed upon. > > Hence, IMHO, StumpWM should be in a section related to X11 or window > managers, not in "lisp". As far as this is the general case, I am fine as well. It is just that I would like to avoid some applications in one section and some in the other. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgpfEpTAatqQ2.pgp
Description: PGP signature