/usr/share/common-lisp/systems/ not in asdf:*central-registry*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello all,
[context: the newest clc does not longer add
/usr/share/common-lisp/systems to asdf:*central-registry*]
Desmond O. Chang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
>> I still consider this a regression, since previous behavior is horribly
>> broken, also with respect upstream "assumptions", e.g. StumpWM manual
>> creation:
>
> Agreed. I think /usr/share/common-lisp/systems should be considered as
> the default location of asdf:*central-registry* in debian. Some upstreams
> need asdf to load libraries, and so does slime's load-system command.
One of the major criticisms of clc and Lisp on Debian in general is that
it 'breaks' installing your own packages.
I tried to educate people about clc-register-user-package, but the
complains remained.
So I thought to reduce the footprint of clc in the normal images so that
the breaking would not occur.
My plan was then to have a debian port of clbuild that would install the
packages in /usr/local/common-lisp/<foo> and add
/usr/local/common-lisp/systems as a place for systems in clc. Thus still
having the packages and the clc control.
Maybe I was listening to a vocal minority... What do others think?
Should I add /usr/share/common-lisp/systems again to
asdf:*central-registry* in all Debian CL implementations?
Groetjes, Peter
- --
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave
Aronson|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=EA+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: