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
