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

[Vladimir Sedach]

Let me test portable-clx and stumpwm with CLISP on OpenBSD and Linux
and see how that works.

I'm fine maintaining portable-clx for now because as you said there
isn't that much work. I'd like to change portable-clx to use usocket
when I have the time (that should also make it work on ECL).

Would you mind if I set up a github repository for clx instead? I much
prefer that to gitorious

Happy hacking,
Vladimir

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ben Spencer <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>