debian-lisp list
Lam
hello,
why don't create a debian-lisp-list ?
there are a lots of lisp package in debian archive
it could be a good thing to have a debian mailing list for lisp
software (and problems), like debian-python, debian-ocaml, ...
--
(concatenate 'string "lam" (reverse "gro.ylimafxut@"))
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Matthew Danish
> hello,
>
> why don't create a debian-lisp-list ?
> there are a lots of lisp package in debian archive
> it could be a good thing to have a debian mailing list for lisp
> software (and problems), like debian-python, debian-ocaml, ...
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list
Sounds like a good idea to me, and Kevin agrees too. Either you can
submit the bug, or I will do it later on.
--
; 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."
Neil L. Roeth
--
Neil L. Roeth
Marco Trevisani
marco
--
************************************************************************
* marco trevisani *
* http://trevisani.net ma...@amarone.trevisani.net *
* Neither MS-Word nor MS-PowerPoint attachments please: *
* See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html *
* Gpg Fingerprint = 6096 84B8 046C A5C9 B538 255E 9FFF 1121 3AFB FFA6 *
************************************************************************
Martin Schulze
> > why don't create a debian-lisp-list ?
> > there are a lots of lisp package in debian archive
> > it could be a good thing to have a debian mailing list for lisp
> > software (and problems), like debian-python, debian-ocaml, ...
>
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me, and Kevin agrees too. Either you can
> submit the bug, or I will do it later on.
Lists aren't created just for the fun of them. They are usually created
after there has been proven interest, demonstrated by many discussions
and not by <aol>s.
Regards,
Joey
--
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Matthew Danish
> Lists aren't created just for the fun of them. They are usually created
> after there has been proven interest, demonstrated by many discussions
> and not by <aol>s.
The discussion is happening on bugs #180480 and #186125. Please
feel free to contribute.
--
; 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."
synthespian
> Matthew Danish wrote:
>
>>>why don't create a debian-lisp-list ?
>>>there are a lots of lisp package in debian archive
>>>it could be a good thing to have a debian mailing list for lisp
>>>software (and problems), like debian-python, debian-ocaml, ...
>>
>>http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list
>>
>>Sounds like a good idea to me, and Kevin agrees too. Either you can
>>submit the bug, or I will do it later on.
>
>
> Lists aren't created just for the fun of them. They are usually created
> after there has been proven interest, demonstrated by many discussions
> and not by <aol>s.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joey
>
The level of attention the Lisp list will get is not going to be
great, due to the fact that not that many hackers grok, or want to grok,
common lisp.
However, there's substantial work being done in the Debian community
with regard to common lisp. Currently, the easiest way to handle the
common lisp package problem is using Debian, through the
common-lisp-controller. It has made life easier for a lot of people that
use common lisp. It represents an advance in the way things are done if
you are a common lisp user. And this thanks to the Debian common lisp
developers! And it's exclusive to the Debian distro!
Quite frankly, if there's a debian-ocaml, I don't see why not have a
debian-lisp, if the sheer number of users is your measuring stick. Same
regarding eiffel. since there's has been *original* development and
solutions for Common Lisp being done *now* by members of the Debian
community, and that work is quite specific to Debian.
It would make things easier for everyone, centralizing discussions.
Like somebody said: "Common Lisp - not bad for a dead language." ;-)
Just my two cents.
Regs,
Henry Lenzi
Kevin Rosenberg
> >Matthew Danish wrote:
> >
> >>>why don't create a debian-lisp-list ?
> >
> However, there's substantial work being done in the Debian community
> with regard to common lisp. Currently, the easiest way to handle the
> common lisp package problem is using Debian, through the
> common-lisp-controller. It has made life easier for a lot of people that
> use common lisp. It represents an advance in the way things are done if
> you are a common lisp user. And this thanks to the Debian common lisp
> developers! And it's exclusive to the Debian distro!
I think this is clearly true. While the Lisp programming community is
relatively small compared to C, Perl, and Python, it is comprised of
dedicated and smart programmers. Because of the efforts of Debian Lisp
developers, Debian is now the most advanced and full-features means for
developing Common Lisp programs outside of a dedicated Lisp machine.
For my thinking, a debian-lisp list is important for several reasons:
1. While there are 7 Common Lisp implementations packaged for Debian:
CLisp, CMUCL, SBCL, OpenMCL, GCL, AllegroCL, and Lispworks, 6 of
these 7 are all inter-related with the common-lisp-controller
package. Thus, there is a large base of related support needs
across these varied implementations.
2. On a first-pass, I've counted 76 Common Lisp source
packages. I've forwarded this to James Troup. He told me this was
quite a significant size and is considering Lisp to be its own
section in the archive.
3. Because of the efforts Debian Lisp developers making Debian the
best-supported OS for Lisp development, I've personally helped
several prominent open-source Lisp developers to convert to
Debian from other operating systems. Having the support of a
debian-lisp list will further reward such convertees as well as
be an inducement for other developers to adopted Debian.
Thus, I consider Lisp support to be an exclusive Debian asset and I
believe the creation of a debian-lisp list will further solidify &
support this unique Debian advantage.
--
Kevin Rosenberg | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal
GPG signed and encrypted | `. `' Operating System
messages accepted. | `- http://www.debian.org/
Sam Hocevar
> Thus, I consider Lisp support to be an exclusive Debian asset and I
> believe the creation of a debian-lisp list will further solidify &
> support this unique Debian advantage.
I have the feeling that debian-lisp would be exclusively devoted to
Common Lisp, Is that on purpose? There are other widely used dialects in
Debian, such as Scheme.
--
Sam.
Kevin Rosenberg
> I have the feeling that debian-lisp would be exclusively devoted to
> Common Lisp, Is that on purpose? There are other widely used dialects in
> Debian, such as Scheme.
In my observations, it seems the question "is Scheme a Lisp" tends to
provoke more disagreements than agreements. None the less, in the
absense of a scheme mail list, I believe a debian-lisp list should be
shared by whatever language groups believe that they are using a Lisp.
Matthew Danish
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Thus, I consider Lisp support to be an exclusive Debian asset and I
> > believe the creation of a debian-lisp list will further solidify &
> > support this unique Debian advantage.
>
> I have the feeling that debian-lisp would be exclusively devoted to
> Common Lisp, Is that on purpose?
Yes; it is the Common Lisp packages which have a coordinated controller
system. However, Lam and I agreed to change the proposal to
``debian-common-lisp'' instead, because ``debian-lisp'' could be
construed for other Lisp dialects.
> There are other widely used dialects in Debian, such as Scheme.
But, AFAIK, no serious coordination efforts for any of them. And every
Scheme compiler is its own separate language, for most practical
purposes. (This can be dealt with, but it is somewhat more difficult).
--
; 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."
Kevin Rosenberg
> Yes; it is the Common Lisp packages which have a coordinated controller
> system. However, Lam and I agreed to change the proposal to
> ``debian-common-lisp'' instead, because ``debian-lisp'' could be
> construed for other Lisp dialects.
I'm happy with either debian-common-lisp or debian-lisp. Given the
relativley smaller number of people using non-CL lisps, I expect the
the non-CL lisp traffic on a debian-lisp list would not interfer with
efficient CL discussions.
In either case, I think the list will be well-used to the benefit of
Debian and its users and I continue to strongly support this
proposal. I suppose if I had to choose between the two, I'd lean
towards debian-common-lisp but would be glad to have a debian-lisp
list with other non-CL users.
Michael Banck
> In either case, I think the list will be well-used to the benefit of
> Debian and its users and I continue to strongly support this
> proposal. I suppose if I had to choose between the two, I'd lean
> towards debian-common-lisp but would be glad to have a debian-lisp
> list with other non-CL users.
Why don't you setup a list at alioth.d.o or someplace else for the time
being? If there is enough traffic on it, I guess listmasters can easily
be convinced to install a proper list at lists.d.o.
just my 0.02 DM,
Michael
--
"Productivity in any task is inversely proportional to the number of IRC
windows you have open."
Kevin Rosenberg
> Why don't you setup a list at alioth.d.o or someplace else for the
> time
> being? If there is enough traffic on it, I guess listmasters can
> easily
> be convinced to install a proper list at lists.d.o.
There's lot of places to host such as list. I'll be glad to host it
myself on my server. Mail lists are essentially free to host so cost
isn't an issue
The idea, though isn't necessarily to scrounge a resource, but to
publicly support the active Debian Common Lisp community and continue
to attract good developers to the Debian OS.
If qualification for a debian-* mail list depends on a minimum monthy
message quota, I'd it helpful to be informed what that is.
Thanks!
Sven Luther
> > Yes; it is the Common Lisp packages which have a coordinated controller
> > system. However, Lam and I agreed to change the proposal to
> > ``debian-common-lisp'' instead, because ``debian-lisp'' could be
> > construed for other Lisp dialects.
>
> I'm happy with either debian-common-lisp or debian-lisp. Given the
> relativley smaller number of people using non-CL lisps, I expect the
> the non-CL lisp traffic on a debian-lisp list would not interfer with
> efficient CL discussions.
Notice that the list for coordination of the ocaml maintainers was
called debian-ocaml-maint, and not debian-ocaml as i had requested. I
suppose the debian-ocaml would have been viewed as more of an user list,
while the debian-ocaml-maint list is mostly for the coordination of the
maintainers of ocaml related packages.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Kevin Rosenberg
> Notice that the list for coordination of the ocaml maintainers was
> called debian-ocaml-maint, and not debian-ocaml as i had requested. I
> suppose the debian-ocaml would have been viewed as more of an user list,
> while the debian-ocaml-maint list is mostly for the coordination of the
> maintainers of ocaml related packages.
Thanks for the info, Sven.
In discussions with other folks using Common Lisp on Debian, one of
the main goals to have to a centralized place for discussion between
users and package maintainers. So, I think that'd still be termed
debian-lisp rather than debian-lisp-maint.
Thanks for the info!
Jérôme Marant
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Notice that the list for coordination of the ocaml maintainers was
> > called debian-ocaml-maint, and not debian-ocaml as i had requested.
> I
> > suppose the debian-ocaml would have been viewed as more of an user
> list,
> > while the debian-ocaml-maint list is mostly for the coordination of
> the
> > maintainers of ocaml related packages.
>
> Thanks for the info, Sven.
>
> In discussions with other folks using Common Lisp on Debian, one of
> the main goals to have to a centralized place for discussion between
> users and package maintainers. So, I think that'd still be termed
> debian-lisp rather than debian-lisp-maint.
But this is the same for the ocaml list: some users are subscribed
to it and tell us when they meet problems with packages or when
they want to suggest something. Some upstream maintainers are
also subscribed to it.
The point is that it is not a list about ocaml programming.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <jer...@marant.org>
<jerome...@free.fr>
Kevin Rosenberg
> But this is the same for the ocaml list: some users are subscribed
> to it and tell us when they meet problems with packages or when
> they want to suggest something. Some upstream maintainers are
> also subscribed to it.
>
> The point is that it is not a list about ocaml programming.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that is a similar purpose to the
proposed list: an area to discuss current and proposed Debian Lisp
packages, their use, problems, and desired features.
Neil L. Roeth
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > I have the feeling that debian-lisp would be exclusively devoted to
> > Common Lisp, Is that on purpose?
>
> Yes; it is the Common Lisp packages which have a coordinated controller
> system. However, Lam and I agreed to change the proposal to
> ``debian-common-lisp'' instead, because ``debian-lisp'' could be
> construed for other Lisp dialects.
You're right. I was one of the original folks who responded positively to the
proposal as posted on debian-devel for a lisp mailing list, and I construed it
to be for all dialects. As a Schemer, I strongly prefer a more general lisp
list, so I take back my support if it is to be for Common Lisp only.
> > There are other widely used dialects in Debian, such as Scheme.
>
> But, AFAIK, no serious coordination efforts for any of them. And every
> Scheme compiler is its own separate language, for most practical
> purposes. (This can be dealt with, but it is somewhat more difficult).
What better place to discuss such coordination than a Debian lisp list?
As Kevin Rosenberg said, if the majority use CL and not Scheme, then the
traffic from Schemers would be small anyway. Keep it general.
--
Neil L. Roeth