[Openmcl-devel] asdf-install and asdf in the openmcl distributions
mb at bese.it
Sun Jan 18 14:56:56 UTC 2004
On Domenica, gen 18, 2004, at 06:14 Europe/Rome, Gary Byers wrote:
> - what version of asdf-install should be included ?
at the moment there's only one version, but this is a good question for
which i don't have a good answer. i'd say the latest available at the
moment of the creation of the openmcl distribution, but this isn't a
very usefull answer.
> - what else does it depend on, and what versions of those things ?
> (I assume ASDF in this case)
asdf-install depends on asdf which depends on nothing. keeping the
dependencies minimal is one of asdf-install's objectives.
> - quite reasonably, the README file for asdf-install discusses
> using it with SBCL. Should a README.OpenMCL file be added,
> that at least points people to the HTML documentation in the
> portable version ?
or just substitute the contents of the README with a link to edi's
tutorial. One could even put a line somewhere in OpenMCL's docs
mentioning the availability of asdf-install with a link to edi's
tutorial and forget the README file.
> - I'd personally agree that many people would find asdf-install
> useful. Exactly which things are so useful that they should
> be bundled, and how should that be decided ?
the point of bundling asdf-install is that you wouldn't need to bundle
anything else. once you have asdf-install any other interesting things
could be distributed as asdf-install'able packages and getting them
would be a simple matter of (install :silver-bullet). even the examples
could be packaged and distributed this way.
> There may be simple answers to these questions, and the fact that
> I'm asking them may just indicate that I haven't thought enough
> about these issues. If people have thought about these things,
> I'd appreciate hearing their opinions.
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
More information about the Openmcl-devel