lisp and redhat
Paul O'Donnell
I have recently installed RedHat Linux 8.0. Does this come with CLISP?
Where do I find the executable? I tried the following and it did not work.
[root@cpe024350002546 sheets]# clisp
bash: clisp: command not found
Also can anyone suggest a good online tutorial for the Lisp language?
Any tips as to how I should go about teaching myself Lisp are greatly
appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul
Paul O'Donnell
I have just done some more reading and discovered that I might also be
able to use gcl as a common lisp compiler and interpreter. But I have
the same problem trying to find that within my RedHat installation.
[root@cpe024350002546 sheets]# gcl
bash: gcl: command not found
What are the pros and cons of clisp vs gcl? What really is the best free
tool to get started with Lisp?
Paul
Matthew Danish
> HI Again,
>
> I have just done some more reading and discovered that I might also be
> able to use gcl as a common lisp compiler and interpreter. But I have
> the same problem trying to find that within my RedHat installation.
>
> [root@cpe024350002546 sheets]# gcl
> bash: gcl: command not found
I suspect you need to install the appropriate package from RedHat before
you can use the program. It would be nice if it came pre-installed, but
alas it is not to be in these dark days.
> What are the pros and cons of clisp vs gcl? What really is the best free
> tool to get started with Lisp?
Well, neither GCL nor CLISP is a fully conforming implementation of ANSI
Common Lisp. GCL, I understand, is taking great strides in this
direction, but until such time I recommend that you investigate various
other, more conformant, compilers such as CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, LispWorks,
and Allegro. CLISP is not a machine-code compiler, and it lacks when it
comes to the advanced features, but it is also an acceptable option for
beginners.
Other than LispWorks, all the compilers above are most commonly used
with Emacs, usually in conjunction with an Emacs package such as ILISP,
or ELI (for Allegro).
If you are not an Emacs person, then I recommend starting with the
LispWorks personal edition. This will be the easiest to setup, and
comes with an assortment of helpful tools in the IDE. When you are more
comfortable with Lisp, then you can transition to Emacs in conjunction
with whatever compiler suits your needs.
See http://www.cliki.net/ for further information.
--
; Matthew Danish <mda...@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Andy Reiter
> Well, neither GCL nor CLISP is a fully conforming implementation of ANSI
> Common Lisp.
> I recommend that you investigate various other, more conformant, compilers
> such as CMUCL, SBCL, ECL
ECL is not more ansi compliant than CLISP, just read its TODO list to see
what is missing.
OTOH, ECL has the cleanest[1] internals out there, a joy to hack.
--
[1] More in accord with my taste, I should say.
Sam Steingold
> * On the subject of "Re: lisp and redhat"
> * Sent on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:04:55 -0500
> * Honorable Matthew Danish <mda...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> Well, neither GCL nor CLISP is a fully conforming implementation of
> ANSI Common Lisp.
CLISP is quite conforming in my opinion (no less than CMUCL, Allegro &c).
> CLISP is not a machine-code compiler,
indeed, CLISP compiles to byte-codes, just like Java.
CLISP is not as fast as, e.g., CMUCL, when it comes to floating point,
but other than that it is quite competitive.
> it lacks when it comes to the advanced features
which features do you have in mind?
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat8 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
If abortion is murder, then oral sex is cannibalism.
Paul O'Donnell
>>* In message <2003011803...@lain.cheme.cmu.edu>
>>* On the subject of "Re: lisp and redhat"
>>* Sent on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:04:55 -0500
>>* Honorable Matthew Danish <mda...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>Well, neither GCL nor CLISP is a fully conforming implementation of
>>ANSI Common Lisp.
>
>
> CLISP is quite conforming in my opinion (no less than CMUCL, Allegro &c).
>
>
>>CLISP is not a machine-code compiler,
>
>
> indeed, CLISP compiles to byte-codes, just like Java.
> CLISP is not as fast as, e.g., CMUCL, when it comes to floating point,
> but other than that it is quite competitive.
>
>
>>it lacks when it comes to the advanced features
>
>
> which features do you have in mind?
>
I just want to learn the Lisp language. I have programmed in Java, C,
C++, VB, Perl and many others and want to add to my bag of tricks. I am
completely new to Linux and I am trying to inhale as much as I can and
enjoying it so far. I am teaching myself emacs as well, it is a little
different from what I am used to in the Windows world, but I like it.I
am not a big fan of visual IDE's. Ideally I want to use the same
environment to write programs in as many languages as possible. emacs
seems like the right choice for the editor, as for the
compiler/interpreter I now have it narrowed down to gcl, clisp or CMUCL.
BTW, that is one of the most frustrating things so far about Linux - the
holy wars. emacs vs vi, gnome vs kde and now gcl vs clisp vs CMUCL.I
think for now I have decided on gnome and emacs. All I need to do is
choose a Lisp compiler. Someone suggested the book "A Gentle
Introduction to Symbolic Computation." I don't have the URL handy but it
was easy to find using the title as the google search term, if anyone is
interested.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> BTW, that is one of the most frustrating things so far about Linux - the
> holy wars. emacs vs vi, gnome vs kde and now gcl vs clisp vs CMUCL.
Goodness, why should this be frustrating? Just use the one you
like (and don't forget the commercial Lisps).
Paul
Edi Weitz
> BTW, that is one of the most frustrating things so far about Linux -
> the holy wars. emacs vs vi, gnome vs kde and now gcl vs clisp vs
> CMUCL.
That shouldn't bother you at all. One of the many good things about
Common Lisp is that it has an ANSI standard
<http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Front/index.htm> and I
think at this point it is safe to say that all CL implementations out
there that are under active development (AllegroCL, CLISP, CMUCL,
Corman Lisp, ECL, GCL, MCL, OpenMCL, LispWorks, SBCL, SCL - sorry if I
forgot one) /aim/ to be conforming with that standard.
So as long as you try to conform to this standard it doesn't matter at
all which implementation you are using. If you later find out that
your implementation doesn't conform to a part of the standard that's
important to you you can complain about it (if it's a commercial
implementation), change it (if it's an open source implementation) or
simply use another one.
I'd say that for learning the language it is completely irrelevant
which implementation you choose, and "official" availability for Red
Hat shouldn't concern you at all. With CMUCL, e.g., you just grab the
tarball and unpack it into /usr/local - that's it. Is RPM any easier?
All other CL implementations should have similarly easy installation
procedures.
Let me add that it might be well be the case that /none/ of the
above-mentioned implementations is /fully/ ANSI-compliant - but this
usually applies either to "dark corners" of the language or to
advanced features you'll mostly likely not come across while
learning. (I'm not a C++ expert but I've heard it is very hard to find
a fully-comforming C++ compiler as well.)
HTH,
Edi.
Edi Weitz
> advanced features you'll mostly likely not come across while
Hehe - make that "most likely"...
Erik Naggum
| CLISP is quite conforming in my opinion (no less than CMUCL,
| Allegro &c).
So CLISP finally and at long last supports `change-class´ and class
redefinition via the `update-instance-for-different-class´ and
`update-instance-for-redefined-class´ protocols? That is welcome
news, indeed. Perhaps I can actually use CLISP, now.
| If abortion is murder, then oral sex is cannibalism.
Good grief. The sheer lack of /taste/...
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Larry Clapp
> * Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org>
>| If abortion is murder, then oral sex is cannibalism.
>
> Good grief. The sheer lack of /taste/...
Eewww.
Thomas F. Burdick
> BTW, that is one of the most frustrating things so far about Linux - the
> holy wars. emacs vs vi, gnome vs kde and now gcl vs clisp vs CMUCL.
As a newbie to any of these divides, I'd recommend that you try to
figure out what you want from the thing there's a holy war over, and
see which side is more in agreement with you. Usually such wars are
over basic values, which is why they can't be won by either side.
gcl v CLISP v CMUCL, however, is a non-existent holy war; quite a few
people use both CLISP and CMUCL (gcl is not a widely-used general
purpose implementation). I would strongly recommend against gcl right
now, because it is in transistion from an old version of the language,
to the modern standard. "In transition" means week-to-week
improvements and changes, and that's not a very good learning
environment. CLISP is a generally good implementation, with one
gigantic, glaring problem: it doesn't implement key parts of the
object system that were put there to give it flexibility and dynamism.
If/when they fix that, it will be a wonderful, general-purpose
implementation; until such time, you need to judge whether it's
appropriate on a project-by-project basis. CMUCL, LispWorks, and
Allegro should all be good learning platforms on Linux. If you have
no interest in learning the Lisp approach to OOP, then CLISP would be
okay. However, I recommend that you learn the Lisp approach to OOP,
because it's quite a mind-opener.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Christopher Browne
> I have just done some more reading and discovered that I might also be
> able to use gcl as a common lisp compiler and interpreter. But I have
> the same problem trying to find that within my RedHat installation.
>
> [root@cpe024350002546 sheets]# gcl
> bash: gcl: command not found
>
> What are the pros and cons of clisp vs gcl? What really is the best
> free tool to get started with Lisp?
GCL /way/ predates the current Common Lisp standard, which makes it a
whole lot less satisfactory for educational purposes.
The other major "free" option is CMU/CL, which is is more conformant
to the CL standard than either CLISP or GCL.
The major area of non-conformance of CLISP is with regard to CLOS,
where the ability to redefine classes on the fly is somewhat limited.
That is highly unlikely to bite you on day 1, or even in year 1...
--
output = ("aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lisp.html
I always try to do things in chronological order.
Johannes Grødem
> I'd say that for learning the language it is completely irrelevant
> which implementation you choose, and "official" availability for Red
> Hat shouldn't concern you at all. With CMUCL, e.g., you just grab the
> tarball and unpack it into /usr/local - that's it. Is RPM any easier?
Easier or not, there are RPMs for CMUCL available here:
http://www.caddr.com/lisp/
--
Johannes Grødem <OpenPGP: 5055654C>
Joseph Oswald
> Hi All,
>
> I have recently installed RedHat Linux 8.0. Does this come with CLISP?
> Where do I find the executable? I tried the following and it did not work.
I am surprised no one has mentioned this option yet, but Franz offers
a free trial version of its commercial Allegro CL, for many platforms,
including x86 RedHat.
I have no personal experience with Allegro CL (but seeing that they
now have a version for Mac OS X might change that), but think it is
important to support
commercial alternatives as well as free ones.
Quoting from http://www.franz.com/downloads
The Trial version may be used for the following purposes:
* Class instruction
* Homework assignments
* Personal programming unrelated to either commercial endeavors
or university-sanctioned research
Limitations:
* Limited heap size--Windows: 22 MB, Linux (PPC): 21 MB,
Linux (x86)/FreeBSD/Mac OS X: 18 MB
* No support
* New license file required every 60 days (contact a Franz Inc.
Product Application Manager for additional license options)
Platforms:
* FreeBSD 4.x
* Linux 2.x, x86 Redhat 6.x and 7.x [GNU C Library 2.1/2.2]
* LinuxPPC 2000 (Q4) [GNU C Library 2.1 or later]
* Windows 9x/Me, NT/2000/XP
* Mac OS X 10.1
Tim Lavoie
Paul> BTW, that is one of the most frustrating things so far about
Paul> Linux - the holy wars. emacs vs vi, gnome vs kde and now gcl
Paul> vs clisp vs CMUCL.
Holy wars are what seems to happen when people have
choices. Personally, I'd take them over a peaceful monopoly.
--
Ah, yes. I remember my first beer.
-- Steve Martin to a heckler
Christopher Browne
> I have recently installed RedHat Linux 8.0. Does this come with CLISP?
> Where do I find the executable? I tried the following and it did not
> work.
>
> [root@cpe024350002546 sheets]# clisp
> bash: clisp: command not found
Looks like you're running as root; it seems Rather Unwise to be
exploring for applications as the Omnipotent User That Can Trash
Everything.
It's sort of like wandering the house with a flamethrower in your
hand, with your finger on the trigger. One stumble and and Fluffy the
Cat might become an unexpected barbeque lunch.
Beyond that, CLISP is apparently not installed, by default, in RH 8.0.
It is available as a "contributed RPM;" it's more than likely included
on one of the supplementary CDs. Look at <http://rpmfind.net/> if you
haven't got that.
> Also can anyone suggest a good online tutorial for the Lisp
> language? Any tips as to how I should go about teaching myself Lisp
> are greatly appreciated.
<http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/cover.html>
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu:80/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index.html>
<http://grimpeur.tamu.edu/~colin/lp/>
<http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp.html>
<http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf>
You should also certainly obtain a copy of the Common Lisp HyperSpec,
which provides a comprehensive view on the language standard. The
HTML version of CLTL2 is also valuable, if not always authoritative.
--
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/commonlisp.html
"Very little is known about the War of 1812 because the Americans lost
it." -- Eric Nicol
synth...@uol.com.br
> HI Again,
>
> I have just done some more reading and discovered that I might also be
> able to use gcl as a common lisp compiler and interpreter. But I have
> the same problem trying to find that within my RedHat installation.
>
>
That's because RedHat isn't a very good distro for development (except for the usual C stuff), IMHO.
Although RedHat 8.0 and the BlueCurve desktop is very nice, the FLOSS survey, with more than 3500 free
software developers surveyed, demonstrates a preference for Debian (almost 50% of Free Software
developers worldwide go for Debian). The amount of packages for RedHat is by far smaller, even more so
when you're talking about programming languages.
A /lot/ of stuff for programming languages is available for Debian. You won't get that many goodies in
RedHat.
As a matter of fact, I think the majority of the CMUCL developers use that distribution (I might be
wrong).
If you want to have a "install once" distro and not go through the hassle of looking for RPMs, and you
feel there's still time to change, consider Debian. It'll make your life easier.
So there isn't really a Holy War. Just choices.
This is just my 2 cents. I've nothing against RedHat, this isn't "a war", but take it as a tip, because
I've used both GNU/Linux distros.
If you think the Debian installer is to much for you (a bit difficult for newbies - it made me sweat the
first time), you might want to burn a CD with the image of the Debian-based Knoppix distro. It'll run
from your CD drive without installing, in demo mode. If you like it then, you can install on your HD. The
installation is a breeze (I have a friend who says that he had a harder time installing Windows XP).
With the non-free Lisps you have the problem of the licenses. However, you should at least have a look,
because the environment is very different from, say, Emacs + Ilisp + CMUCL.
Regards,
Henry
rif
I don't completely agree. I'm using Debian, and when I first started
using CMUCL, I ran into several problems, because the Debian distro of
CMUCL is not kept especially up-to-date.
rif
Christian Lynbech
rif> I don't completely agree. I'm using Debian, and when I first started
rif> using CMUCL, I ran into several problems, because the Debian distro of
rif> CMUCL is not kept especially up-to-date.
I am surprised to hear that. It seems to me that debians CMUCL seems
pretty well up to date as it supports 18d+.
With debian it is however important to understand that two things has
a large impact on the freshness of a package. It is both a function on
how active the responsible debian developer is and what distribution
we are talking about.
Wrt. distributions one should be aware that there are several
different distributions with very different release cycles. The
`stable' distribution corresponds to the official welltested releases
of debian and it is wellknown fact and source of great frustration to
the debian community that these releases happens so seldomly. The
`unstable' distribution represents the bleeding edge with constant
uploads of new versions of various packages. So when I am saying that
CMUCL seems well supported this relates to the `unstable'
distribution; that the CMUCL in the `stable' distribution is rather
old is in no way any fault of the maintainer of CMUCL.
The lisp developers in the debian seems very active to me. Even so,
the debian CMUCL package allows you to recompile CMUCL, something that
can bring tears to the eyes of even the most seasoned programmers.
That alone would be worth quite a lot if you want to be on the very
edge of CMUCL development or even to do a tweak or two on your own.
A definite bonus of debian is that there is a wealth of common lisp
packages supported. There is also a quite nice system
(common-lisp-controller) that allows common lisp packages to contain
only the sources and then have it automatically recompiled for the
common lisps installed on the system rather than requiring the package
developer to manually recompile his package for the various supported
compilers.
Here follows the raw list of common lisp software directly supported
in the debian unstable distribution:
Name Description
==============================================================================
cl-acl-compat Compatibility layer for Allegro Common Lisp
cl-asdf Another System Definition Facility
cl-aserve (no description available)
cl-awk Common Lisp package with the features of AWK and more.
cl-binary-types Common Lisp package for reading and writing binary files
cl-cclan Comprehensive Common Lisp Archive Network
cl-db-sockets Common Lisp sockets library
cl-defsystem3 Make system for Common Lisp Packages
cl-faq This package contains Common Lisp-related FAQs
cl-fare-md5 (no description available)
cl-ftp Common Lisp FTP library
cl-htmlgen HTML generation library for Common Lisp programs
cl-hyperobject Common Lisp library for hyperobjects
cl-imho Common Lisp web development framework
cl-imho-web-connector (no description available)
cl-inflate Common Lisp package to decompress a gzip, jar, and winzip file
cl-kmrcl General Utilities for Common Lisp Programs
cl-lexer Lexical-analyzer-generator package for Common Lisp
cl-lml Lisp Markup Language
cl-local-time (no description available)
cl-local-time-db (no description available)
cl-mail-streams A stream interface for sending mail from Common Lisp
cl-md5 Common Lisp package for MD5 Message Digests
cl-meta The META-library for Common Lisp
cl-metadata (no description available)
cl-metering A portable metering and profiling utility for Common Lisp
cl-odcl onShore Development Common Lisp utilities
cl-pdf Common Lisp package to create PDF files
cl-png Common Lisp package to read and write PNG image files
cl-port Common Lisp Object Collections Port Package
cl-postoffice SMTP, POP, & IMAP interface library for Common Lisp Programs
cl-ppcre Portable Regular Express Library for Common Lisp
cl-regex Common Lisp regular expression compiler/matcher
cl-rt Common Lisp regression tester from MIT
cl-sdl Common Lisp bindings to the SDL graphics library
cl-sdl-demos CL-SDL and OpenGL example programs
cl-sdl-opengl Support for OpenGL in Common Lisp, via CL-SDL
cl-split-sequence Common Lisp package split a sequence of objects
cl-sql-backend (no description available)
cl-sql-base SQL Interface for Common Lisp
cl-sql-mysql CLSQL database backend, MySQL
cl-sql-uffi Common UFFI functions for CLSQL database backends
cl-statistics Common Lisp Statistics Package
cl-uffi Universal Foreign Function Library for Common Lisp
cl-uncommonsql Common Lisp database access kit
cl-uncommonsql-backend (no description available)
cl-uncommonsql-mysql UncommonSQL database backend, MySQL
cl-uncommonsql-oracle (no description available)
cl-uncommonsql-postgresql (no description available)
cl-xptest (no description available)
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | email: chri...@defun.dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- pet...@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Rahul Jain
> Wrt. distributions one should be aware that there are several
> different distributions with very different release cycles. The
> `stable' distribution corresponds to the official welltested releases
> of debian and it is wellknown fact and source of great frustration to
> the debian community that these releases happens so seldomly. The
> `unstable' distribution represents the bleeding edge with constant
> uploads of new versions of various packages.
You forgot to mention what is probably the most generally useful
release, `testing'. The debian web site contains a description of what
it is and I'm sick of repeating it over and over again (redundancy
intentional), so I won't. :)
--
Rahul Jain
Christian Lynbech
Rahul> You forgot to mention what is probably the most generally useful
Rahul> release, `testing'.
Yes, I should have mentioned that as well, I was just worrying about
getting to detailed wrt. the point I was trying to make.
Anyway, `testing' is currently not so usefull according to what I am
hearing (I have personally used `unstable' for years).
Testing is an "in-the-middle" distribution between `stable' and
`unstable'. New versions of a package appears immediately in
`unstable', then it will automatically move to `testing' after some
time and subject to certain restrictions such as there being no
critical bugs listed on that version of the package and that it does
not depend on a version of another package which is not in `testing'.
The problem is that debian is in a process of migrating to a new
version of glibc and gcc 3.2 (yet another incompatible change to the
C++ ABI) which are holding a lot of packages back in their migration
from `unstable' to `testing'.
It is probably also worth mentioning that debian has the strongest
emacs support that I know of. Not only does it support half a dozen
different emacses but it also has a concept for coexistence between the
various emacses akin to the common-lisp-controller for the lisp
compilers. Elisp packages are distributed in source form and
recompiled upon installation for the installed versions of emacs
(at least for those emacs versions the package supports).
This means that debian has read-to-install versions of quite a lot
elisp software including rather recent versions of ILISP, GNUS, VM,
BBDB, ECB, PCL-CVS and Speedbar.
Not to mention the hyperspec, onlisp (book and code), the CLX manual
and CLtL.
Anybody serious about lisp programming should definitely check out Debian.
Johan Kullstam
I find that "testing" can be in some senses the worst of all worlds.
There is no security update as with "stable". I guess that security
updates are performed anyway but I do not know how expedicious they
are in testing. In testing, updates to many programs are fairly rare
-- i've had things broken in testing for much longer than they've
remained broken in unstable/sid, and the libc logjam is currently
preventing many significant updates. Case in point -- ilisp in
testing has been giving me grief for some time. It was sending
highlighting and such to the slave lisp process; C-z C-k wasn't
compiling &c.
That said, i am running testing on my machine at work and unstable at
home. I wanted a bit of stability and i got that. However, ilisp
flaked for a bit in testing. The unstable because back in sept 2002,
testing xfree86 was too old to support my video card and to get X i
basically had to straight to sid. For me, ilisp has been more
reliable in sid due to the more frequent updates. Ymmv.
--
Johan KULLSTAM <kulls...@attbi.com> sysengr
Tim X
I would have to agree with the previous posters about Debian being the
best desktop distribution for anyone interested in development. Its
unfortunate there does seem to be a need to run unstable at present
because of the glibc/gcc issues though.
I've been a lurker in this group for a couple of weeks now. Just in the
process of teaching myself lisp and I have only one very minor
criticism of Debian - it has so many choices for a lisp implementation
to choose, its very difficult to decide which is best when your just
starting. However, from what I've picked up in this group, I think I'm
on the right track. I've been an emacs user for some years and
immediately installed ilisp for my environment. I've been using a
combination of sbcl and clisp which seem to meet my novice needs quite
well at this stage.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Hannah Schroeter
Tim X <ti...@spamto.devnul.com> wrote:
>I would have to agree with the previous posters about Debian being the
>best desktop distribution for anyone interested in development.
Frankly, for C development, I *strongly* prefer the free BSD-based
OSes. The manual pages in section 2 and 3 just suck over there in
Linux land.
However, a port (in the BSD sense) of the free Lisps and some c-l-c
like stuff to OpenBSD would be nice...
>[...]
Kind regards,
Hannah.
hzi
wrote:
Hello --
The BSD kernels are being ported to Debian. Debian NetBSD is supposed
to come out Real Soon Now. ;-)
Cheers
Henry
Nicolas Neuss
I'm using Debian ("Woody stable") which, unfortunately, has only really old
versions of CMUCL and others. I tried to get the Lisp packages separately
from "testing" without success:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
neuss@ortler:~$ sudo apt-get install common-lisp-controller/testing cmucl/testing cmucl-clm/testing cmucl-normal/testing cmucl-safe/testing cmucl-small/testing cmucl-source/testing sbcl/testing ilisp/testing
...
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
cmucl: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5-13) but 2.2.5-11.2 is to be installed
cmucl-clm: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5-13) but 2.2.5-11.2 is to be installed
sbcl: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5-13) but 2.2.5-11.2 is to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages
neuss@ortler:~$ sudo apt-get install common-lisp-controller/testing cmucl/testing cmucl-clm/testing cmucl-normal/testing cmucl-safe/testing cmucl-small/testing cmucl-source/testing sbcl/testing ilisp/testing libc6/testing
...
The following extra packages will be installed:
cl-asdf cl-defsystem3 cmucl cmucl-clm cmucl-normal cmucl-safe cmucl-small
cmucl-source common-lisp-controller ilisp ldso libc5 libc6 libdb1-compat
realpath sbcl termcap-compat
The following packages will be REMOVED:
blas-dev build-essential g++ g++-2.95 g++-3.0 gcj gcj-3.0 itcl3.1-dev
itk3.1-dev language-env libc6-dev libgcj2-dev libncurses5-dev
libncursesw5-dev libstdc++2.10-dev libstdc++3-dev libxaw6-dev locales
tcl8.2-dev tcl8.3-dev tk8.2-dev tk8.3-dev xlib6g-dev xlibs-dev zlib1g-dev
The following NEW packages will be installed:
cl-asdf cl-defsystem3 cmucl cmucl-clm cmucl-normal cmucl-safe cmucl-small
cmucl-source common-lisp-controller ilisp ldso libc5 libdb1-compat realpath
sbcl termcap-compat
1 packages upgraded, 16 newly installed, 25 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 35.9MB of archives. After unpacking 32.1MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Maybe I will have to switch to "testing" globally to use the Debian
packages...
Nicolas.
Adam Warner
> Hmm. Maybe I will have to switch to "testing" globally to use the Debian
> packages...
Put testing (and perhaps unstable) sources in your /etc/apt/sources.list
Add this line to /etc/apt/apt.conf if you want to stay with stable globally:
APT::Default-Release "stable";
# apt-get update
# apt-get install -t testing cmucl-normal
If that doesn't work because testing is in a state of flux with the gcc
3.2.x upgrade, do this instead:
# apt-get install -t unstable cmucl-normal
Everything that needs to be upgraded to unstable will be.
Use --purge with apt-get so that old configuration files for packages will
be purged as well.
Regards,
Adam
Hannah Schroeter
hzi <h...@uol.com.br> wrote:
>On 4 Feb 2003 19:28:47 GMT, han...@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter)
>wrote:
>>Frankly, for C development, I *strongly* prefer the free BSD-based
>>OSes. The manual pages in section 2 and 3 just suck over there in
>>Linux land.
>>However, a port (in the BSD sense) of the free Lisps and some c-l-c
>>like stuff to OpenBSD would be nice...
> The BSD kernels are being ported to Debian. Debian NetBSD is supposed
>to come out Real Soon Now. ;-)
I don't want just the BSD kernel, but I want the base system being
from one hand. The "original" *BSD projects do provide exactly that.
Man pages that actually match the library and kernel, (almost) no strange
interactions between different parts of the base system, etc.
If I wanted a patchwork system, I'd be very happy to use Debian in
its original form (i.e. with a Linux kernel).
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Sean Neakums
> Tim X <ti...@spamto.devnul.com> wrote:
>
>>I would have to agree with the previous posters about Debian being
>>the best desktop distribution for anyone interested in development.
>
> Frankly, for C development, I *strongly* prefer the free BSD-based
> OSes. The manual pages in section 2 and 3 just suck over there in
> Linux land.
Yes, they do. The GNU libc manual is pretty decent, although info
lacks the immediacy of man pages.
--
Sean Neakums <snea...@zork.net>