[Admin] hosting the UBF-in-CL project

[erik-nittin at imeme.net]

> Which is a good argument against the rfc<nnnn> names. I think I just
> changed my mind on those rfc<nnnn> names; I don't think anymore that
> they are good names, because the projects aren't the rfc. Linedit is an
> invented word, afaict, so I'd think it is 100% ok.

I don't fully understand your motivation.  We're already in the context
of CL, so cl-rfc822 sounds superfluous to me.  It annoys me every time
I say:

  (cl-ppcre:scan ...)

Having to say

  (cl-rfc822:parse-date ...)

is so silly.  IMHO, of course.  Nicknames could be a solution to that.

If I'm in comp.lang.python and make a reference to the Common Lisp
implementation of rfc822 I would probably say "a CL implementation of
rfc822".  If it's a package in Debian, I have no problems with the
Debian package being named cl-rfc822.  djb's RFC 822 implementation
is called "mess822"; the Python module is called "rfc822" so is the
Ruby version.

I guess I'm being a bit stubborn.  I think I see what you mean; you're
not suggesting that we have cl-araneida and cl-sb-sockets, but rather
that proper names such as RFC 822 should be cl-rfc822 to indicate that
this is not the proper thing itself but rather an implementation of it.

Whatever the popular vote is, I'll go with it.

One good thing about having packages prefixed with cl- like that is that
a Google search for "cl-rfc822" should be fairly indicative of whether
there is such a package out there or not.

> Then, as far as I am concerned, I think your project should get
> hosting here.

I agree.

> The only thing that remains to be cleared is whether we
> support arch or not.

Andreas summarized the things I had to do to make that a reality
in an email some time back.  I'll have a look at it again and
see if I can get the time to set this up rather rapidly.

Erik.