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

[David Bjergaard]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for all of your thoughtful input.  I think we/I might be
confusing some issues.  

To be crystal clear: Quicklisp *will not* be incorporated into stumpwm
core in any shape or form.  Power users are free to use
quicklisp to load code in their stumpwmrc, but we will not require
stumpwm-core or modules to have quicklisp installed.

Modules are currently imported with a call to (load), work needs to be
done to make current modules their own ASDF packages.  Then they will be
loaded with a call to (asdf:load-system).  The end users will still load
stump extensions with (load-module "blah").  

With these operating points, debating the use of quicklisp doesn't make
sense.  Quicklisp is a method for obtaining lisp source code. 

How you get your source code shouldn't matter to stumpwm, you should be
able to add multiple directories to *contrib-dir* the same way you add
directories to emacs' load-path. I think that this is the most flexible
way we can support extensions from multiple sources (different linux
distros, quicklisp, git repos, or even tarballs from an author's
website).

This debate is getting a little far from the original point: decouple
contrib from stumpwm core so that module developers can have their code
used independent of the stumpwm development cycle.  

I apologize if I've mislead anyone, I'm still learning the particulars
of quicklisp, asdf, and stumpwm in parallel.  I hope everyone agrees on
the above points so we can move forward and "hack the good hack." 

Cheers,

    Dave

"J. David Smith" <address@hidden> writes:

> I think most novice users will be pulling things in from a package
> manager if they are able to on their distro.
>
> If the distro doesn't have a quicklisp package, it would make sense to
> create one and have it pulled in automatically. After all, quicklisp
> *is* a dependency. It makes sense to use a system designed to handle
> that (package manager) to deal with it.
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Michael Raskin <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>     >
>     >So just to be clear: we should totally use ASDF, and using ASDF
>     is
>     >enough for quicklisp. I think quicklisp is a good thing, and I
>     think
>     >that all or most of the *current* hard core stump users are also
>     >quicklisp users. That's great. I just want to make sure that when
>     we
>     >design the workflow for installing contrib modules we have
>     something
>     >that makes sense for users who aren't necessarily like us.
>     >
>     >(I think the emacs analogy is decent. And to be fair, I compile
>     emacs
>     >myself, from sources but I don't expect that other people will do
>     the
>     >same.)
>     
>     
>     May I ask a simple question?
>     
>     Can't we build QuickLisp into the StumpWM binary for novice users?
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     _______________________________________________
>     Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>     address@hidden
>     https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>