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

[Ben Spencer]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 04:28:46PM -0500, Vladimir Sedach wrote:
> > [0] Actually, given that portable-clx is pretty much maintainerless
> >    I've even considered having a 'blessed' version that we maintain
> >    specifically for stumpwm.
> 
> I think this is where the problem is. Do you want to try being
> co-maintainer with me? clx is something I was eventually planning to
> work on anyway.

Well it sounds like neither of us have much time to spare, but
assuming it won't take up much, sure, let's give it a try.  I have a
gitorious project for it at http://gitorious.org/clx that we could use
if you like.

I'm not sure this solves the CLISP problem, but maybe we should just
go ahead and push that change and see if anybody complains.  For one
thing it would bypass the long-running dynamic module issue and make
it easy to build CLISP binaries again.

Ben