Re: [STUMP] Some patches to remove implementation-dependent code

[Ben Spencer]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:31:57PM -0400, Vladimir Sedach wrote:
> I took a look at the stumpwm source code, and found some
> implementation dependencies I thought didn't really belong there (in
> particular with regards to CLISP). I also really dislike the
> workarounds file - that crap just tends to pile up. Once a fix has
> been made upstream it doesn't make sense to keep supporting old
> versions.


Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for the patches.  Some of them intersect with the build system
/ README work I pushed this morning - sorry about that, could have
saved you some work if I'd done it earlier.


0001 Removed unused stumpwm-system package declaration.

Is there anything particularly wrong with this idiom?  And if we're
not using it, should we qualify defsystem with asdf: ?


0002 Don't assume that clisp doesn't need CLX

The problem here is that asdf doesn't know how to load clisp's builtin
clx, so the build will fail if you want to use that.


0003 Got rid of workarounds file

How certain are you that none of these are needed?  The SBCL CLX
caching thing certainly looks like it can go, but the get-wm-class
stuff for example looks like it might be there to protect us against
broken applications.

I am certainly keen to get rid of cruft we don't need, but at the same
time I'd rather not gratuitously break anybody's setup.  Although we
can probably assume that SBCL users will be using the latest version
of portable-clx, I think CLISP users are currently more likely to be
using new-clx.


0004 Removed make-image and cl-ppcre checking from autoconf

Already done.


0005 In Makefile, load make-image.lisp with -i flag for CLISP so that
.clisprc is run first.

I did this as:

clisp_BUILDOPTS=-K full -on-error exit < ./make-image.lisp

Not sure if that makes any difference?


0006 Put quicklisp instead of asdf-install instructions in README

Also already done, let me know if you're not happy with the new
wording.


Ben