Hi Pierre,
>> I am also in favor >> of renaming SBCL-Next to something else. I know that we are using sbcl >> instead of clisp for building it, but the naming scheme seems to imply >> an SBCL library or module rather than a web browser application. > > This is being discussed for stumpwm in bug #33311. […] I’ve read that discussion, but I don’t see how it is relevant. The *name* of the package surely does not have any effect on the features, does it? For applications like StumpWM and Next we could change the package names to “stumpwm” and “next”, respectively. That these packages can *also* be used as libraries does not mean that the packages should have names with the “sbcl-” or “cl-” or “other-lisp-” prefix. Am I misunderstanding something? -- Ricardo
