Re: [STUMP] (sub-modules) / Contrib

[Eric Abrahamsen]

David Bjergaard <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi All,
>
> Since our model of modules is settling down, I think we should freeze
> the discussion and implement the pieces proposed so far.  I will start
> this when I get time, but I'm open to a pull requests. :)
>
> Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> [...]
>> Quicklisp has the concepts of "dists", which I don't claim to understand
>> completely, but looks like it might be what we want: a discrete
>> "ecosystem" of packages. Since these modules will be meaningless except
>> for stumpwm users, it might make sense to have a separate stumpwm dist,
>> with its own dependency structure. Creating dists doesn't seem to be
>> documented at the moment, but it would be interesting to know what's
>> involved.
> I agree that dists may be the way to go, the trouble is, there is no
> good documentation and I don't have time to dig through the sources to
> figure it out (I did a little research, but didn't get anywhere
> concrete).  Further, we would need our modules to be packaged for
> quicklisp before we could make a dist out of them.  In conclusion I
> think we should start with the proposed solution, and then move to dists
> down the road.

I'd be happy to try contacting Zach Beane and seeing if he wanted to
shed some light on the process. I agree it's not worth waiting for, and
we should keep it as a middle-future possibility, but I'd be willing to
do some exploring and see what's feasible.

Eric