What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Diogo F. S. Ramos-2
I couldn't find a list of the supported Common Lisp implementations.  Is
there one?

One could try by enumerating *_BUILDOPTS variables from Makefile.in but
wrappers.lisp has conditions on implementations that I don't think match
any ._BUILDOPTS.

_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Ben Spencer-2
On 15 January 2015 at 01:07, Diogo F. S. Ramos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I couldn't find a list of the supported Common Lisp implementations.  Is there one?

Probably not an accurate one.  The README states "sbcl, clisp, ccl and
ecl".  Makefile.in is likely a good list of those that people have
made it support in the past (although it's worth noting that "getting
it running" and "building an executable image" aren't exactly the same
problem - I've had it sort of running under abcl in the past).

wrappers.lisp contains a load of junk[0] which I believe was
originally copied verbatim from elsewhere.  It should really be done
away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.

In my experience: sbcl, clisp and ccl usually work, whereas ecl is a
bit of a moving target.  I don't know about LispWorks but the person
who did the port can probably provide more enlightenment there.

Of course a major factor is which lisps currently have a working clx.
I believe the clx that most people use is currently under stewardship
of the sharplispers; they may have a list of implementations they aim
to support.

Ben

[0] Although not as much as it used to!
https://github.com/stumpwm/stumpwm/commit/2ca1e14119db9c14bec2db1347cb2d868149e5bb

_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Diogo F. S. Ramos-2
> On 15 January 2015 at 01:07, Diogo F. S. Ramos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I couldn't find a list of the supported Common Lisp implementations.  Is there one?
>
> Probably not an accurate one.  The README states "sbcl, clisp, ccl and
> ecl".  Makefile.in is likely a good list of those that people have
> made it support in the past (although it's worth noting that "getting
> it running" and "building an executable image" aren't exactly the same
> problem - I've had it sort of running under abcl in the past).

Oh, thank you.  Shame on me, I missed that README part.

> wrappers.lisp contains a load of junk[0] which I believe was
> originally copied verbatim from elsewhere.  It should really be done
> away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.

I hope StumpWM does not start depending on Quicklisp.  I run it using
only Debian, even though README lists cl-xembed as a dependency and
Debian does not have it in its repository.

> Of course a major factor is which lisps currently have a working clx.
> I believe the clx that most people use is currently under stewardship
> of the sharplispers; they may have a list of implementations they aim
> to support.

Looking at <https://github.com/sharplispers/clx>, it seems they aim to
support SBCL.

_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

David Bjergaard
Hi All,

This is the official list:
>> "sbcl, clisp, ccl and ecl"
Everything else is up to the individual user and can be documented on
the wiki, but won't be officially supported as far as bug reports
etc. (Someone recently got stumpwm running on MacOS!)

Ecl requires some special setup, and so it isn't regularly run through
the travis build machinery.  By that metric, we only support sbcl,
clisp, and ccl.  
>> wrappers.lisp contains a load of junk[0] which I believe was
>> originally copied verbatim from elsewhere.  It should really be done
>> away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.
This probably won't happen mainly to avoid making headaches for package
maintainers.  There are parts that were pulled from elsewhere (cl-fad
mainly), but there are other parts that have been spun by past stumpwm
authors.  The wrappers.lisp file is a skin over ugly hacks that makes
the rest of the stumpwm codebase more pleasant.  Removing it would not
be a trivial task.
>
> I hope StumpWM does not start depending on Quicklisp.  I run it using
> only Debian, even though README lists cl-xembed as a dependency and
> Debian does not have it in its repository.
I won't ever depend on quicklisp in a way that prevents StumpWM from
being packaged by distros. As far as I know, the cl-xembed dependency is
only for the stumptray module, and can be left out (though there are
hooks, and I don't know if they depend or not).

Cheers,

    Dave


_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Ben Spencer-2
On 15 January 2015 at 17:41, David Bjergaard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.
> This probably won't happen mainly to avoid making headaches for package
> maintainers.

Well you don't *have* to get them from quicklisp, it's just the
easiest way for an end user building from source to deal with a bunch
of dependencies.  I would have thought this was less of a problem for
package maintainers in that you just need to define the list once, but
I'm not a package maintainer so I won't press the point.

Ben

_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

Diogo F. S. Ramos-2
> On 15 January 2015 at 17:41, David Bjergaard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.
>> This probably won't happen mainly to avoid making headaches for package
>> maintainers.
>
> Well you don't *have* to get them from quicklisp, it's just the
> easiest way for an end user building from source to deal with a bunch
> of dependencies.  I would have thought this was less of a problem for
> package maintainers in that you just need to define the list once, but
> I'm not a package maintainer so I won't press the point.

Well, packages need to be available in the repository.  Not only
packages and their dependencies, but also the correct versions of them.

_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel