GNU bug report logs - #33311
[PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 33311 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 33311 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 10:01:59 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Guix!

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

WDYT?

Thanks,
Pierre

[0]: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/stumpwm-devel/2017-01/msg00007.html

[0001-gnu-Drop-non-sbcl-lisp-support-from-Stumpwm-2018.05.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
To: 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 22:05:13 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Guix!

Pierre Langlois writes:

> Hello Guix!
>
> 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
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Pierre
>
> [0]: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/stumpwm-devel/2017-01/msg00007.html

Ping! Does anyone have any thoughts about renaming "sbcl-stumpwm" to
just "stumpwm" now that sbcl is required?

BTW, attached is a new version of the patch that resolves a conflict on
the copyright header.

Thanks,
Pierre

[0001-gnu-Drop-non-sbcl-lisp-support-from-Stumpwm-2018.05.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>, Andy Patterson <ajpatter <at> uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm
 2018.05.
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:37:22 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

(Sending a second time, looks like my first mail did not go through.)

I agree with your suggestion, and your patch looks good to me.

I haven't tested as I don't use StumpWM.
Could any other StumpWM user try this out?

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

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
Cc: 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm
 2018.05.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:25:22 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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.

Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com> 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

[…]

> [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 ‘M-x build-farm b =j ecl-stumpwm-18.05.x86_64-linux’
package is failed to build for a long time.  WDYT?

Please, add the following for Guix users with sbcl-stumpwm installed:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public sbcl-stumpwm
  (deprecated-package "sbcl-stumpwm" stumpwm))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

[…]

>>From 8180d03797ebd0c26adfc27276cc0682a04a0f8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:51:05 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.
>
> StumpWM version 1.0.0 was the last version to support lisps other than
> sbcl.  This renames the current version of Stumpwm to simply "stumpwm" instead
> of "sbcl-stumpwm" since it's redundant.  However, we can keep version 1.0.0
> around if somebody wants a version with ecl.
>
> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (sbcl-stumpwm): Rename to ...

I think “Rename to stumpwm” and delete line “(stumpwm): ... this.” is
better, but no strict opinion on that.

> (stumpwm): ... this.
> [name]: Rename to "stumpwm".
> [arguments]: Set #:asd-system-name to "stumpwm".
> [properties]: Replace ecl-variant with cl-source-variant.
> (cl-stumpwm): Inherit from stumpwm but override the name.
> (ecl-stumpwm): Remove.
> (ecl-stumpwm-1.0.0): New variable.
> (sbcl-stumpwm+slynk): Rename to ...
> (stumpwm+slynk): ... this.

Same.

> [name]: Rename to "stumpwm-with-slynk".
> [inherit]: Replace sbcl-stumpwm with stumpwm.
> [inputs]: Ditto.
> [arguments]: Ditto.

Rather “[inherit, inputs, arguments]: Replace sbcl-stumpwm with
stumpwm.”.

[…]

Thanks,
Oleg.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
To: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>, 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm
 2018.05.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:01:40 +0000

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 <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com> 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
>
> […]
>
>> [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 ‘M-x build-farm b =j ecl-stumpwm-18.05.x86_64-linux’
> 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

Message #20 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
To: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>, 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm
 2018.05.
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 12:06:47 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

Here's the updated patch.  I've removed ecl-stumpwm but kept the pure
source cl-stumpwm variant.

Thanks!
Pierre

[0001-gnu-stumpwm-Drop-non-sbcl-lisp-support.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com>
Cc: 33311-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 33311 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm
 2018.05.
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 07:34:00 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Pierre,

Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois <at> gmx.com> writes:

> What about the pure CL source version, should I remove that one too? I
> guess it doesn't hurt to keep it.

I'm not agree to remove it because I don't understand a build system.
The build farm succeeds to “build” it as I am.  According to a build
system documentation:

     Additionally, the corresponding source package should be labeled
     using the same convention as python packages (see *note Python
     Modules::), using the ‘cl-’ prefix.

https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Build-Systems.html

I think you might want to start a discussion on guix-devel.

> Here's the updated patch.  I've removed ecl-stumpwm but kept the pure
> source cl-stumpwm variant.

LGTM with minor changes in commit message,
pushed as 4b193da3f959244112a85f996d630aa1ed6d0902

Thanks,
Oleg.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.