Re: [STUMP] What are the Common Lisp implementations which StumpWM supports?

On 15 January 2015 at 17:41, David Bjergaard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> away with and replaced with compatibility libraries from quicklisp.
> This probably won't happen mainly to avoid making headaches for package
> maintainers.

Well you don't *have* to get them from quicklisp, it's just the
easiest way for an end user building from source to deal with a bunch
of dependencies.  I would have thought this was less of a problem for
package maintainers in that you just need to define the list once, but
I'm not a package maintainer so I won't press the point.

Ben