Lisp libraries: Other variants? (CCL, CLisp, etc.)

[Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1280 bytes --]

Hi guix,

Right now we have the following Lisp systems packaged in Guix:

- gcl
- ecl
- clisp
- sbcl
- ccl (Clozure)
- femtolisp
- lush2

(Am I missing any?)

For Common Lisp libraries, we have 3 ASDF-based build systems:

- asdf-build-system/sbcl: Build against SBCL (de facto choice?)
- asdf-build-system/ecl: Build against ECL
- asdf-build-system/source: Raw source.

Should we support more variants?  For instance, CCL is fairly popular,
maybe it would be a good idea.  If so, should we keep going with the
current method?  That is to say, for Alexandria:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public cl-alexandria
  (sbcl-package->cl-source-package sbcl-alexandria))

(define-public ecl-alexandria
  (sbcl-package->ecl-package sbcl-alexandria))

; etc.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

It can be a little verbose, maybe a function could help here, e.g.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-lisp-package sbcl-alexandria cl ecl ccl)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

But does it matter at all if we have the source build system?  Can all
other implementations use cl-alexandria for instance?

--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]