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

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

"Mike Thomas" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.
> 

Actually, to my understanding, the inclusion of the gpl'ed binary
components puts the whole binary "combination" under the GPL.  You
might want to checkout the behavior of (si::default-system-banner)
(just committed) and its behavior with different values in
*features*.  Please let me know if something is amiss or undesirable. 

> | > 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

I support this should be mutually exclusive with :ansi-cl, right?
Even though except for a few instances, the former is built upon the
latter. 

> 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.

Wow.  I certainly hope not.  It takes years and years just to fully
comply with what's already written.  Its also an asset to CL, IMHO,
that a standard exists which is old and established.  Its really not
old enough in my opinion.  There has been too much damage due to
implementation diversification.

> 
> 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.
> 

We have si::*gcl-{major,minor,extra}-version*.  Do you feel something
in *features* is better?

> Note also in relation to standards
> 

???

Take care,

> Cheers
> 
> Mike Thomas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah