Oliver,
Well, my experience with creating lots of Common Lisp .deb packages on Debian shows that problems in most cases are caused by incorrect placement of the .asd file(s) followed by missing .lisp files or other missing stuff. Sometimes the .asd file tries to be smart by doing things that it shouldn't do (like i.e. compile C source code). The most time consuming part for me is to find the right version of libraries. Especially for larger programs with lots of dependencies like Closure, the McCLIM based web browser. Somehow I never got it to do anything useful.
I think that once people seriously try to understand what kind of problems the Debian (and other packagers) try to solve, that they will understand that it is only logical to choose something like CLC. I can only hope that such an understanding leads to more constructive ideas than just dismissing it by saying that it is evil.
Groetjes, Peter.
2010/7/12 Oliver Uvman oliver.uvman@gmail.com:
So in summay clc works really well when it works, but when it doesn't it is very difficult to ascertain where the fault lies. Is it still actively developed, and if so do the developers know that this is people's opinion about their system? They can't do anything about it if we don't inform them.
/Oliver
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 23:29, Robert Uhl eadmund42@gmail.com wrote:
Andy Hefner ahefner@gmail.com writes:
The advice on the wiki is a bit out of date. These days, nine out of ten lispers agree that neither asdf-install, common-lisp-controller, nor Debian/Ubuntu-packaged lisp implementations should be used by anyone, at any time, for any purpose.
Ummm, common-lisp-controller is the reason that I was able to build my mcclim packages for Fedora. It works _really_ well.
It easily enables Lisp source to be installed by root, with FASLs cached neatly, and allows multiple Common Lisp implementations to share the same source.
It's great.
-- Robert A. Uhl
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel