On 4 February 2013 18:58, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Mon 04 Feb 2013 03:07, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> writes: >> Is guile-lib interested in receiving new code? > > Dunno! I'm not sure. Now that we have the guildhall starting up, I > would be inclined to say "no". Better a decentralized repo than a > poorly maintained centralized repo. > > Do you think guile-lib should accept new code?
For small modules, I think guile-lib may still service a niche. Some downstreams tend to favour having very small language extensions packaged together (e.g. Debian). It is certainly more convenient to declare an apt dependency on guile-lib, rather than introduce a new package for every 20 line module. Perhaps it can continue as a kind of collabatively maintained library for flyby authors to deposit their useful-but-small modules. :-/
