Bug#617501: clisp does not run, claims to be missing a required file

[Agustin Martin]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:06:27AM +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 00:42, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd at debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'm all in favor of your work and I think that you are doing the right
> > thing, but I'm missing the following:
> >
> > - documenting what lisp packages should do
> > - documenting what lisp implementation should do
> > - documenting how users can use this
> > - documenting how DM/DD can test their packages
> > and
> > - no breaking other packages
> 
> First of all, please read this:
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.alioth.common-lisp/2616/
> 
> > Related: I wanted to investigate how the 'new' clc is supposed to work,
> > but I've noticed that the
> > /usr/share/doc/common-lisp-controller/DESIGN.txt
> > and
> > /usr/share/doc/common-lisp-controller/NEWS.Debian.gz
> > don't mention this new redesign. What do I need to do? How to I test this?
> 
> I have updated README.Debian in dh-lisp, but c-l-c not yet.
> 
> I plan to upload new c-l-c once all existing implementations no longer
> depend on it.
> 
> > Why did you select this method? Given the fact that as I understand it
> > updated implementations should only depend on cl-asdf, if at all, what
> > is the role of dh_lisp in new implementations and why on purpose break
> > all older implementations?
> 
> Most of implementations already have asdf2 internally.  They don't
> need to depend on cl-asdf.  Of cource, user may install cl-asdf, this
> will implement hot-upgrading for asdf.
> 
> The original purpose of dh-lisp is to install c-l-c into images of the
> implementations.  Now it's useless.  Please consider removing dh-lisp
> from all common lisp implementations and redebianizing them.

Does this mean that this bug report really belongs to clisp?

-- 
Agustin