[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lisp libraries: Other variants? (CCL, CLisp, etc.)
From: |
Pierre Neidhardt |
Subject: |
Lisp libraries: Other variants? (CCL, CLisp, etc.) |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:10:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 |
Hi guix,
Right now we have the following Lisp systems packaged in Guix:
- gcl
- ecl
- clisp
- sbcl
- ccl (Clozure)
- femtolisp
- lush2
(Am I missing any?)
For Common Lisp libraries, we have 3 ASDF-based build systems:
- asdf-build-system/sbcl: Build against SBCL (de facto choice?)
- asdf-build-system/ecl: Build against ECL
- asdf-build-system/source: Raw source.
Should we support more variants? For instance, CCL is fairly popular,
maybe it would be a good idea. If so, should we keep going with the
current method? That is to say, for Alexandria:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public cl-alexandria
(sbcl-package->cl-source-package sbcl-alexandria))
(define-public ecl-alexandria
(sbcl-package->ecl-package sbcl-alexandria))
; etc.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
It can be a little verbose, maybe a function could help here, e.g.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-lisp-package sbcl-alexandria cl ecl ccl)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
But does it matter at all if we have the source build system? Can all
other implementations use cl-alexandria for instance?
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Lisp libraries: Other variants? (CCL, CLisp, etc.),
Pierre Neidhardt <=