Hi,
I've released 0.1 version of clget. Clget is a yet another downloader
of lisp packages.
http://common-lisp.net/project/clget/
Enjoy,
Yes, I aware of asdf-install existence. But I'm affected by NIH
syndrome :-)
--
Cheers,
Rafal Strzalinski
http://nablaone.net
On 2007-07-07, Rafal Strzalinski <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've released 0.1 version of clget. Clget is a yet another downloader
> of lisp packages.
So let me get this straight:
clget serves exactly the same purpose as clbuild, except that it lacks
most of clbuild's features? (See http://common-lisp.net/project/clbuild/)
Admittedly, your Perl source code looks much cleaner than the mess
clbuild has become.
Would you consider working on merging the two projects? (I cannot speak
for the other clbuild contributors, but changing clbuild to use Perl
instead of shell would be acceptable to me.)
Quick comparison chart:
clbuild clget
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Written in Lisp no no
1 Manually maintained list of packages yes yes
2 Just calls out to wget, cvs, etc yes yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Written in shell Perl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Does the compilation, too yes no
5 Knows how to run various programs yes no
6 Can compile SBCL for you yes no
7 Cute dialog(1) interface yes no
8 Lots of CLIM apps already covered yes no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Nice packages.txt no yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like (9), and I could live with perl.
You'll have to rewrite most of clbuild in Perl to compete with (4), (5),
(6), (7), and (8) though, which are clbuild's distinguishing features.
On 7 Lip, 21:09, David Lichteblau <···········@lichteblau.com> wrote:
> clget serves exactly the same purpose as clbuild, except that it lacks
> most of clbuild's features? (Seehttp://common-lisp.net/project/clbuild/)
No. It only downloads packages. I'm big fan of KISS principle. One
utililty, one task. IMHO
application builder should be an another util.
> Would you consider working on merging the two projects? (I cannot speak
> for the other clbuild contributors, but changing clbuild to use Perl
> instead of shell would be acceptable to me.)
Yes :-), I was thinking about merging, but with my other script
(http://nablaone.net/repo/hg/dino/ it builds web development kit,
based on hunchentoot)
I've got proposal. Let's remove getting of dependencies from
clbuild. and replace it with proper 'clget' calls (take a look at
dino). It'll make 'clbuild' a bit shorter. After that I'll merge
'dino' into 'clbuild'. Ups, 'hunchentoot' is already supported by
'clbuild' :-).
IMHO shell script are fine for build systems. Only reason I've used
Perl it was parsing of 'packages.txt' file. I've tried to do it in
bash, but it was not readable.
--
Cheer,
Rafal Strzalinski
http://nablaone.net
On 2007-07-07, Rafal Strzalinski <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got proposal. Let's remove getting of dependencies from
> clbuild. and replace it with proper 'clget' calls (take a look at
> dino). It'll make 'clbuild' a bit shorter. After that I'll merge
> 'dino' into 'clbuild'. Ups, 'hunchentoot' is already supported by
> 'clbuild' :-).
>
> IMHO shell script are fine for build systems. Only reason I've used
> Perl it was parsing of 'packages.txt' file. I've tried to do it in
> bash, but it was not readable.
Cool. Sounds like a plan!
Dnia 07.07.2007 David Lichteblau <···········@lichteblau.com> napisa�/a:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 0 Written in Lisp no no
For a download manager written in Common Lisp and supporting cvs, darcs,
etc., one might also try Maciek Pasternacki's CL-Librarian
[ http://japhy.fnord.org/CLLibrarian ].
Just a note,
--
Daniel 'Nathell' Janus, GG #1631668, ············@nathell.korpus.pl
create_initial_thread(initial_function);
lose("CATS. CATS ARE NICE.\n");
-- Steel Bank Common Lisp, sbcl/runtime/runtime.c:425