RE: [Gcl-devel] ["Gordon ShawNovak"<address@hidden>]Re:GCLgetting slushy ...

[Mike Thomas]

Hi Camm.

| OK, while I agree with this, it has also made clear the other poster's
| point that it is simply too long.  Can anyone think of some accurate
| terse phraseology that will fit into two lines max?  How about
|
| Source License: LGPL(GCL), GPL(unexec,bfd)
| Binary License: GPL -- GPL'ed external components (unexec,bfd,readline)

Looks good to me except in the second line the first GPL should be LGPL.
You might also consider making line 2 an echo of line 1 with the appropriate
mods, but really I don't think it matters.

| > I also would like to see, for the sake of convenience, the
| version displayed
| > as "2.6.1 ANSI" or "2.6.1 CLtL1" depending on the value of the
| configure.in
| > variable @CLSTANDARD@ which is already being used in the
| Windows installer
| > script to generate differentiable package names.
|
| Agreed.  Will do this, but how about tying to :ansi-cl in *features*?

Agreed - I hadn't realised there was such a symbol until you mentioned it
thanks.  So I suppose we should also have a feature :CLTL1.  I say this
because according to stuff on one of the Corman CL lists it seems that there
may be a move to revise the CL standard under the auspices of the
Association of Lisp Users rather than ANSI mainly for administrative
reasons.  In other words we could conceivably be looking at a modified
standard within a few years.

I think it might also be smart to have a version feature as GCL itself is
rapidly changing and we could easily end up with a nasty mess in third party
code over the next two years.

Note also in relation to standards

Cheers

Mike Thomas.