GNU bug report logs - #36131
Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages

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 36131 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 36131 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: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:08:27 -0500

[0001-gnu-Add-clunit.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-Add-py4cl.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-gnu-Add-parse-declarations.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0004-gnu-Add-cl-quickcheck.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0005-gnu-Add-burgled-batteries3.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0006-gnu-Add-metabang-bind.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0007-gnu-Add-fare-utils.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0008-gnu-Add-trivial-utf-8.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0009-gnu-Add-antik.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0010-gnu-Add-gsll.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0011-gnu-Add-cl-interpol.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0012-gnu-Add-symbol-munger-lisp-unit2.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0013-gnu-Add-cl-csv.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0014-gnu-Add-external-program.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0015-gnu-Add-cl-ana.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 16 (text/plain, inline)]

-- 
Katherine

Message #8 received at 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:39:57 +0200

Hello Katherine,

Thanks for this patch series!

I’ve applied all of them until #7 included (fare-utils), fixing minor
issues that ‘guix lint’ reported.

I’d be grateful if someone reading this could do their share of
review/apply work!  :-)

I noticed that ‘ecl-hu.dwim.asdf’ and ‘ecl-rt’ fail to build, so I
couldn’t test all the ‘ecl-*’ variants.  Could you take a look at these
two packages?

More generally, does it make sense to have ECL variants for each and
every package?  Or should we trim that down?  I’m under the impression
that ECL is typically used with rather small code bases since it’s meant
to be embedded, but then I’m not a Common Lisper.

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:56:11 -0500

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hello Katherine,
>
> Thanks for this patch series!

You bet! Power to the Guix :)

> I’ve applied all of them until #7 included (fare-utils), fixing minor
> issues that ‘guix lint’ reported.

Thank you, and sorry for the linting issues. I get busy and then rushed
and I make these stupid mistakes.

> I’d be grateful if someone reading this could do their share of
> review/apply work!  :-)
>
> I noticed that ‘ecl-hu.dwim.asdf’ and ‘ecl-rt’ fail to build, so I
> couldn’t test all the ‘ecl-*’ variants.  Could you 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’m under the impression
> that ECL is typically used with rather small code bases since it’s meant
> to be embedded, but then I’m 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.

-- 
Katherine

Message #14 received at 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Andy Patterson <ajpatter <at> uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Removing some of the Common Lisp packages for ECL?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 10:56:23 +0200

Hello,

Cc’ing Andy as the original author of all this.  :-)

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> I noticed that ‘ecl-hu.dwim.asdf’ and ‘ecl-rt’ fail to build, so I
>> couldn’t test all the ‘ecl-*’ variants.  Could you 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.

Sure, removing packages that don’t build sounds good to me.  Andy, WDYT?

>> More generally, does it make sense to have ECL variants for each and
>> every package?  Or should we trim that down?  I’m under the impression
>> that ECL is typically used with rather small code bases since it’s meant
>> to be embedded, but then I’m 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.

OK, I see.

Thanks for explaining!

Ludo’.

Message #17 received at 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 36131 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:51:45 +0200

Hi again,

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com> skribis:

>>From b62c757389b1b6eee909c7c121d4aef3515b17b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:24:58 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 08/15] gnu: Add trivial-utf-8.
>
> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (trivial-utf-8): New variable.

Applied with synopsis/description adjustments.

>>From 2c56db1e5ea59dd82e07065515d1a576255a88cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:48:30 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 09/15] gnu: Add antik.
>
> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (antik): New variable.

This commit log does not mention the other variables that are added:
quite a few packages are added by this patch.  Could you turn it into
several patches?

Also, could you please run ‘guix lint’ on all the remaining packages and
address any issues, in particular descriptions/synopses (info "(guix)
Synopses and Descriptions")?

Also perhaps omit the ‘ecl-’ variants if you deem them unnecessary.

Hopefully that’ll make the whole review/apply process smoother.  :-)

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.

Message #22 received at 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 21:14:19 +0100

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

Hi,

I reviewed and pushed the remaining patches (9 to 15), after splitting
in several commits or fixing things when necessary. I also removed the
packages for ECL that didn't build.

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

Message #25 received at 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>, 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 10:34:27 +0100

Hi Guillaume,

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> skribis:

> I reviewed and pushed the remaining patches (9 to 15), after splitting
> in several commits or fixing things when necessary. I also removed the
> packages for ECL that didn't build.

Thanks a lot for taking care of these patches, this was long overdue!

Ludo’.

Message #28 received at 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>, 36131-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36131] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 06:06:44 -0600

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

Yes, thank you so much. I apologize for letting these linger.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 03:34 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> skribis:
>
> > I reviewed and pushed the remaining patches (9 to 15), after splitting
> > in several commits or fixing things when necessary. I also removed the
> > packages for ECL that didn't build.
>
> Thanks a lot for taking care of these patches, this was long overdue!
>
> Ludo’.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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