From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47911) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3E1-0000U5-3r for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:02:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3Dv-0000da-NK for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:02:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49434) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3Dv-0000cO-Fj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:02:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3Du-0003AC-2U for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:02:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87o9a96ufh.fsf@gmail.com> From: Pierre Langlois In-reply-to: <87o9a96ufh.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Oleg Pykhalov Cc: 33311@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Oleg, Oleg Pykhalov writes: > Hello Pierre, > > Apologies for not getting attention to this patch for a long time. Also > thank you for working on StumpWM package! I've succeeded to build and > run it. Please, take a look onto my notes about your patch below. Oh that's no problem at all, there's no rush :-). Thanks for taking a look! > > Pierre Langlois writes: > >> I'm in the process of switching back to StumpWM as my main window >> manager, and when taking a look at the package, I realised we still >> supported non-sbcl builds while upstream dropped them after version >> 1.0.0 [0]. So since StumpWM now only supports sbcl, I thought we should >> just rename it to "stumpwm" instead of "sbcl-stumpwm", as that's >> redundant. And then we can keep the ecl-stumpwm variant, but downgraded >> to 1.0.0 > > [=E2=80=A6] > >> [0]: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/stumpwm-devel/2017-01/msg00007= .html > > Is there a reason to preserve an unmaintained ECL variant of StumpWM? My > guess is StumpWM users will stick to SBCL upstream version. Also > according to =E2=80=98M-x build-farm b =3Dj ecl-stumpwm-18.05.x86_64-linu= x=E2=80=99 > package is failed to build for a long time. WDYT? The only reason I kept it around is I assumed some people cared since it was there to begin with, I'm happy to remove it. What about the pure CL source version, should I remove that one too? I guess it doesn't hurt to keep it. By the way, I need to take a look at the emacs build-farm package, I hadn't realised you could do that, that's pretty cool! I'll update the patch. Thanks, Pierre