[cl-debian] Anyone willing to package Cedilla?

[Peter Van Eynde]

Hello

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 03:05, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I have one serious objection.  Cedilla is an end-user application, not
> a Common Lisp library, so I believe the package should be called
> ``cedilla'', not ``cl-cedilla''.  The end user has no interest in the
> programming language Cedilla is implemented in.

Corrected. The new name is now cedilla, please  pass the brown bag.

> A more technical issue: when I installed your package, I couldn't run
> cedilla: CLC told me I didn't have the right permissions (EACCESS,
> with no further details).  I had to run Cedilla as root once in order
> to get it to work.  (I might have mis-built it; I used dpkg-buildpackage
> with no options except to change the signer, then dpkg -i.)

I use:
darcs-buildpackage -rfakeroot -k4B729625  '-i_darcs|CVS|.cvsignore' -ICVS

and with me it works for a mere user.

> You may want to tighten the dependency to Clisp version 2.27 or later.
> 2.26 has nasty bug that breaks Cedilla, and older versions do not
> support the ``-ansi'' flag.

done.

> In the description, I would suggest replacing ``unicode text'' with
> ``unicode plain text''.  There's also an unbalanced bracket after
> ``glyphs''.  I would also suggest mentioning a2ps in the description,
> so that ``apt-cache search a2ps'' yields Cedilla.

done.

> I don't have a clear opinion on this subject, but you may want to
> think about whether to include a Cedilla-typeset version of the README
> file in the package.

This would make building cedilla depend on having cedilla installed (or first 
compile a throw-away version). I feel this is a lot of cost for little 
benefit, IMHO.

> The trouble with this is that this delay is long enough to be
> annoying, and we definitely don't want to be confirming the ``Lisp is
> slow'' folklore.  Do you think that it might be worth to switch to
> using a simple script, like the one upstream?  Can such a script be
> automatically generated from the ASD definition?

Once (in version 1 or so) there was a way to generate a 'custom core', but 
this was dropped as no-one was using it anyway. I would need to think if we 
want to create custom cores or we just want to cat the fasls together in one 
fasl per library. For cmucl and sbcl this is a valid method, for the others I 
don't know.

> More generally, shouldn't the CL-Debian project start thinking about
> deployment of applications?  It seems completely oriented to libraries
> right now.

There have been precious few applications to date ;-).

> OTOH, now you mention Defoma, it should be possible to augment the
> list of fontsets in cedilla-config with stuff produced by Defoma.  But
> that will require some more support from Cedilla itself, so don't
> bother right now.  I'll think about it, and let you know what I come
> up with.

Ok.

I'll try to fix 'creating applications' soonish.

Groetjes, Peter

-- 
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org 
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|