From sky at viridian-project.de Fri Oct 2 08:14:59 2009 From: sky at viridian-project.de (Leslie P. Polzer) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:14:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [clbuild-devel] Weblocks dependencies Message-ID: Weblocks needs its dependencies rebuilt. Thanks! Leslie -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer From sky at viridian-project.de Fri Oct 2 08:19:49 2009 From: sky at viridian-project.de (Leslie P. Polzer) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:19:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [clbuild-devel] Additions: teepeedee2, cl-irregsexp Message-ID: <28b629c262b865c523449e721dd819ed.squirrel@mail.stardawn.org> Projects by John Fremlin. --- old-clbuild/wnpp-projects 2009-10-02 10:18:29.845033424 +0200 +++ new-clbuild/wnpp-projects 2009-10-02 10:18:29.845033424 +0200 @@ -196,3 +209,8 @@ fset get_svn_clnet trunk misc-extensions get_cvs_full :pserver:anonymous:anonymous at common-lisp.net:/project/misc-extensions/cvsroot devel + +# teepeedee2 +cl-irregsexp get_git http://common-lisp.net/projects/cl-irregsexp/cl-irregsexp.git +teepeedee2 get_git git://github.com/vii/teepeedee2.git + -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer From sky at viridian-project.de Sat Oct 3 07:30:05 2009 From: sky at viridian-project.de (Leslie P. Polzer) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:30:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [clbuild-devel] FARE-MATCHER and FARE-UTILS have moved Message-ID: <7ef691c716d8c482f8686f29b82ce07f.squirrel@mail.stardawn.org> The tarballs are no longer available. New locations: fare-matcher get_git git://common-lisp.net/users/frideau/fare-matcher.git fare-utils get_git git://common-lisp.net/users/frideau/fare-utils.git Leslie -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer From sky at viridian-project.de Sat Oct 3 12:53:48 2009 From: sky at viridian-project.de (Leslie P. Polzer) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [clbuild-devel] TRIVIAL-BACKTRACE moved to Git Message-ID: --- old-clbuild/wnpp-projects 2009-10-03 14:52:45.649511777 +0200 +++ new-clbuild/wnpp-projects 2009-10-03 14:52:45.659517515 +0200 @@ -74,7 +82,7 @@ dynamic-classes get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/dynamic-classes log5 get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/log5 #A logging framework tinaa get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/tinaa -trivial-backtrace get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/trivial-backtrace +trivial-backtrace get_git http://common-lisp.net/project/trivial-backtrace/trivial-backtrace.git trivial-shell get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/trivial-shell cl-markdown get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-markdown docudown get_darcs http://common-lisp.net/project/docudown -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer From tcr at freebits.de Sun Oct 25 09:47:10 2009 From: tcr at freebits.de (Tobias C. Rittweiler) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:47:10 +0100 Subject: [clbuild-devel] RfC: SBCL with rlwrap and sb-aclrepl Message-ID: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> I just had the idea that it might make sense if clbuild built its sbcl such that it includes rlwrap and automatically uses sb-aclrepl. How do people feel about this? -T. From david at lichteblau.com Sun Oct 25 13:06:11 2009 From: david at lichteblau.com (David Lichteblau) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:06:11 +0100 Subject: [clbuild-devel] RfC: SBCL with rlwrap and sb-aclrepl In-Reply-To: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> References: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> Message-ID: <20091025130611.GA26984@radon> Quoting Tobias C. Rittweiler (tcr at freebits.de): > I just had the idea that it might make sense if clbuild built its sbcl > such that it includes rlwrap and automatically uses sb-aclrepl. > > How do people feel about this? I'm interested in usability improvements. My design choices would be sligthly different in the following respects: - I've recently published a portable fork of sb-aclrepl, called PREPL (for "Portable REPL"). I'd prefer using this portable library over an SBCL contrib. (The unportable bits are handled by a lower-level library: conium, which is a feature-reduced fork of swank-backend for use in hemlock and prepl). - Although rlwrap is a nice trick, there is also linedit, which provides the same capabilities written in portable Lisp, which I think is more interesting. - The SBCL built my 'clbuild compile-implementation sbcl' should be an upstream SBCL. (The only non-upstream thing we do is to enable threads, and I would argue that since upstream ships its *binaries* with that feature and just hasn't enabled it in the sources, that a reasonable deviation.) It might go a bit far to load extra ASDF systems. Since I don't want to override the normal repl in "clbuild lisp", I have instead added a command "clbuild prepl". By default prepl is loaded at run time. Users who want it built into their image for improved start up speed can dump a monster.core. Proposal: Perhaps it would be nice to enable linedit in "clbuild prepl" by default? (Note that "clbuild prepl" also works on other Lisps, in particular Clozure. We should see to it that the linedit feature is either supported by those Lisps, or enabled only if running on SBCL). d. From lnp at healy.washington.dc.us Sun Oct 25 12:29:06 2009 From: lnp at healy.washington.dc.us (Liam Healy) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:29:06 -0400 Subject: [clbuild-devel] RfC: SBCL with rlwrap and sb-aclrepl In-Reply-To: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> References: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> Message-ID: <654935030910250529v14520d77r53ee12f3a9f1bb84@mail.gmail.com> I use both so I would like to see this. When you say "use rlwrap" do you mean "build with readline" or simply run sbcl in rlwrap? I think they behave slightly differently for multi-line input; programs built with readline will scroll back with the whole input at each press of the uparrow (desirable) while rlwrap will give each input line separately (not so useful). Liam From sky at viridian-project.de Mon Oct 26 08:49:31 2009 From: sky at viridian-project.de (Leslie P. Polzer) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:49:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [clbuild-devel] RfC: SBCL with rlwrap and sb-aclrepl In-Reply-To: <20091025130611.GA26984@radon> References: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> <20091025130611.GA26984@radon> Message-ID: <49eedba146a21cfcf3db7232451446fb.squirrel@mail.stardawn.org> David Lichteblau wrote: > - I've recently published a portable fork of sb-aclrepl, called PREPL > (for "Portable REPL"). I'd prefer using this portable library over > an SBCL contrib. (The unportable bits are handled by a lower-level > library: conium, which is a feature-reduced fork of swank-backend > for use in hemlock and prepl). Sounds good. > - Although rlwrap is a nice trick, there is also linedit, which > provides the same capabilities written in portable Lisp, which I > think is more interesting. It's not as stable as rlwrap in my experience. Linedit had some goofs when I last tried it while rlwrap always works for me. Of course Linedit is better than nothing else. > - The SBCL built my 'clbuild compile-implementation sbcl' should be an > upstream SBCL. (The only non-upstream thing we do is to enable > threads, and I would argue that since upstream ships its *binaries* with > that feature and just hasn't enabled it in the sources, that a > reasonable deviation.) > > It might go a bit far to load extra ASDF systems. I'm in favor of adding these bits as long as this doesn't go too far and people test it well. But adding it on a special command is a start. Leslie -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer From tcr at freebits.de Mon Oct 26 09:01:48 2009 From: tcr at freebits.de (Tobias C. Rittweiler) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:01:48 +0100 Subject: [clbuild-devel] RfC: SBCL with rlwrap and sb-aclrepl References: <87fx97erfl.fsf@freebits.de> <20091025130611.GA26984@radon> Message-ID: <877huiv88z.fsf@freebits.de> David Lichteblau writes: > Quoting Tobias C. Rittweiler (tcr at freebits.de): > > I just had the idea that it might make sense if clbuild built its sbcl > > such that it includes rlwrap and automatically uses sb-aclrepl. > > > > How do people feel about this? > > I'm interested in usability improvements. > > My design choices would be sligthly different in the following respects: > > - I've recently published a portable fork of sb-aclrepl, called PREPL > (for "Portable REPL"). I'd prefer using this portable library over > an SBCL contrib. (The unportable bits are handled by a lower-level > library: conium, which is a feature-reduced fork of swank-backend > for use in hemlock and prepl). > > - Although rlwrap is a nice trick, there is also linedit, which > provides the same capabilities written in portable Lisp, which I > think is more interesting. > > - The SBCL built my 'clbuild compile-implementation sbcl' should be an > upstream SBCL. (The only non-upstream thing we do is to enable > threads, and I would argue that since upstream ships its *binaries* with > that feature and just hasn't enabled it in the sources, that a > reasonable deviation.) > > It might go a bit far to load extra ASDF systems. > > Since I don't want to override the normal repl in "clbuild lisp", I > have instead added a command "clbuild prepl". > > By default prepl is loaded at run time. Users who want it built into > their image for improved start up speed can dump a monster.core. > > Proposal: > > Perhaps it would be nice to enable linedit in "clbuild prepl" by > default? (Note that "clbuild prepl" also works on other Lisps, in > particular Clozure. We should see to it that the linedit feature is > either supported by those Lisps, or enabled only if running on SBCL). Sounds good. In fact I might actually be tempted to use clbuild. :-) -T.