[lispy-devel] Packages versus systems

[Michael Ben-Yosef]

Here is a message I sent to Matt Kennedy and forgot to CC to the list:

> Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Michael Ben-Yosef <septagon at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>  I would like to make a recommendation with regard to the terminology that
>>> is being used. I strongly suggest calling it a "system manager" for Common
>>> Lisp instead of a "package manager". As you know, the word "package" already
>>> has a very specific meaning in the CL language. The fact that a package in
>>
>> I agree that the package terminology I've used is unfortunate and
>> should be changed.  How about if we refer to Lispy dowloading
>> **libraries** and managing **systems**?
>>
>> So the changes on the project page would look like this:
>>
>> Common Lisp **system** management in Common Lisp...
>> Lispy is a **system** manager for Common Lisp, written in Common Lisp...
>> 1. Implement an easy to use, portable **system** manager...
>> 2. Provide a wealth of ready to install **libraries**...
>> new releases and also new **libraries** available in the maps...
>> Lispy uses distributed software maps to locate Common Lisp **libraries**...
>> You may have your own **libraries** or other **libraries** not...
>> All Common Lisp **libraries** mapped...
>> These **library** archives are modified...
>> The **library** archive lacks a version number...
>> The **library** needs to be patched
> 
> Sounds excellent. It makes perfect sense since a given library may include multiple system definitions. From this point of view it could perhaps also be called a "library manager". I guess in my haste to dissuade from the use of the word "package" I suggested an alternative which isn't quite right, i.e. maybe just putting "library" everywhere is better.
> 
>> In Lispy's source and also the map files themselves, I've used
>> "module" where I really mean "library".  I think I will change module
>> to library for the next release and update all the maps in a backwards
>> compatible manner.
> 
> Yes, it's a shame that the word "module" is already taken by the standard and used for a now deprecated feature. One could still use hooks or persuade the developers of a given implementation to make REQUIRE and PROVIDE work with Lispy libraries. Then Lispy libraries and modules would be the same thing again for that implementation.
> 
>> Matt
> 
> Once again, thank you for adding a bit of excitement to the Lisp landscape.
> 
> Michael