From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hfpgn-0000sl-HU for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:57:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hfpgm-0006Tu-FK for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:57:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48193) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hfpgm-0006Tn-BC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:57:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hfpgm-0002KG-9W for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:57:04 -0400 Subject: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages Resent-Message-ID: From: Katherine Cox-Buday References: <87pnnpey6c.fsf@gmail.com> <878stpllma.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:56:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <878stpllma.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:39:57 +0200") Message-ID: <87zhm5k0qs.fsf@gmail.com> 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 36131@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello Katherine, > > Thanks for this patch series! You bet! Power to the Guix :) > I=E2=80=99ve applied all of them until #7 included (fare-utils), fixing m= inor > issues that =E2=80=98guix lint=E2=80=99 reported. Thank you, and sorry for the linting issues. I get busy and then rushed and I make these stupid mistakes. > I=E2=80=99d be grateful if someone reading this could do their share of > review/apply work! :-) > > I noticed that =E2=80=98ecl-hu.dwim.asdf=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98ecl-rt=E2= =80=99 fail to build, so I > couldn=E2=80=99t test all the =E2=80=98ecl-*=E2=80=99 variants. Could yo= u take a look at these > two packages? I focused on the SBCL packages and then retroactively went back and added all the ECL packages, trying to be a good citizen. In retrospect, this was not a good idea. Common Lisp code is not guaranteed to work across runtimes. If you're OK with it, I would just go ahead and delete any ECL package that doesn't immediately work. I can do this myself, but I'm currently on holiday and won't be able to take a look for another week and a half. > More generally, does it make sense to have ECL variants for each and > every package? Or should we trim that down? I=E2=80=99m under the impre= ssion > that ECL is typically used with rather small code bases since it=E2=80=99= s meant > to be embedded, but then I=E2=80=99m not a Common Lisper. I think ECL is used outside embedded contexts, but I haven't found a reason to use it yet. If I remember correctly, I think one compiles faster than the other, and the other runs faster, so some people switch between the two when developing and then deploying. --=20 Katherine