Re: Bug#104021: New List Request: debian-guile
>>>>> On 11 Jul 2001 17:28:25 -0700, Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> said:
>>>>> "JL" == James LewisMoss <jimdres@mindspring.com> writes:
Evan> Requesting a list primarily for Debian developers creating
Evan> packages that use Guile, such as libraries or programs with
Evan> Guile embedded.
JL> Can we generalize this to debian-scheme since it's likely to be
JL> low volume anyway?
Evan> I'm skeptical. Is there enough in common between the multiple
Evan> (>5?) Scheme implementations in Debian, that it would make
Evan> sense to coordinate the effort?
They can share scheme only libraries (slib for one, there are others).
Evan> If this was the case, then debian-scheme could be something
Evan> like the debian-emacssen lists or the debian-java lists, which
Evan> coordinate very similar* implementations of Emacs or Java
Evan> systems.
Evan> But my impression is that there is not the same kind of
Evan> similarity between Scheme systems on Debian. In fact, not only
Evan> do I think it's not possible, but I doubt that anyone would
Evan> even be interested in such an endeavor.
Actually I've had discussions about scheme only lib policy. This
would be a good list to have it on.
Evan> If the idea is to save some space on the mailing list
Evan> subscription page -- a noble goal -- I think we might be
Evan> getting ahead of ourselves. Why don't we wait until there ARE
Evan> lists like debian-bigloo, debian-mzscheme, debian-mitscheme,
Evan> etc., to consolidate, before we prematurely consolidate them?
Because it's easier to do this now than later.
Evan> In closing, early generalization is the root of all evil. B-)
Glib statements about often true programming practices don't really
apply here.
Do you actually think there will be enough traffic on a debian-guile
mailing list to actually make creating a new mailing list a good
thing?
Jim
--
@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org> | Blessed Be!
@ http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
Reply to: