A Quicklisp Debian package
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Sebastian Tennant
<sebyte at smolny.plus.com> wrote:
> Lesson: Don't consider an idea a good one until you've slept on it and woken up
> ? ? ? ?stil thinking it's good.
> Perhaps not everything I proposed yesterday is nonsense, but the idea of
> maintaining a one-to-one correspondence between binary ql-* packages and
> individual Quicklisp libraries is the stuff of dreams...
I agree. I also started feeling that ql-* packages would be a burden I
wasn't sure would be worth bearing.
> No, on second thoughts, using Quicklisp in conjunction with dpkg is simply not
> workable other than to install a single package (cl-quicklisp) which perhaps
> provides administrators with a script for performing site-wide Quicklisp
> operations (as demonstrated) and users with a script for querying the state of
> site-wide Quicklisp libraries, and is a Debian package that provides nothing in
> the way of dpkg dependency handling really very useful?
What you describe is basically the expectation I've been having about
the package. Would it be useful still? Well, I think so, if only to
give Quicklisp a proper status of citizen in Debian.
I recall my feelings when reading the Quicklisp setup instructions the
first time, realizing that libraries are all user-only and that no
package for it was available, not even in sid. I didn't even wanted to
try it at first, until I found the hard way that sticking only to what
was officially debianized wasn't representative of the possibilites
already available from the CL community. I could have given up trying
Lisp if it weren't for the copious recommendations of Quicklisp you
find here and there on the web.
> The only other option is an automated process by which a functional subset of
> Quicklisp projects are converted (upstream) to standalone Debian packages
> complete with the same dependency information. ?This is a non-trivial task to
> say the least, something only experienced Debian packaging wizzards should even
I've also thought about this option, specially due to the shortcomings
of Quicklisp when compared wtih dpkg (e.g. no package descriptions!
and not able to express dependencies on foreign, non-Lisp libraries
either). But yes, this definitely can't be something to be considered
in a first try.
I'm still not done going over the other materials you've posted, so
I'll be replying later about them.