Re: guile-lib 0.2.2 released

[Daniel Hartwig]

On 4 February 2013 18:58, Andy Wingo <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon 04 Feb 2013 03:07, Daniel Hartwig <address@hidden> writes:
>> Is guile-lib interested in receiving new code?
>
> Dunno!  I'm not sure.  Now that we have the guildhall starting up, I
> would be inclined to say "no".  Better a decentralized repo than a
> poorly maintained centralized repo.
>
> Do you think guile-lib should accept new code?

For small modules, I think guile-lib may still service a niche.  Some
downstreams tend to favour having very small language extensions
packaged together (e.g. Debian).  It is certainly more convenient to
declare an apt dependency on guile-lib, rather than introduce a new
package for every 20 line module.

Perhaps it can continue as a kind of collabatively maintained library
for flyby authors to deposit their useful-but-small modules.

:-/