Re: [STUMP] Dependencies

Dimitri Minaev (2016-11-02 11:16 +0400) wrote:

> On 11/01/2016 11:12 PM, David Bjergaard wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> When I first started maintaining stumpwm, I was interested in knowing if people
>> were OK with extra dependencies in stumpwm.  This was before quicklisp was as
>> popular as it is now, and the build prescription didn't even mention it.
>> 
>> Things have changed now, and there have been a handful of contributions that
>> change the way stumpwm handles its internal loop.  There are also many, many
>> places where stumpwm re-invents the wheel for the sake of keeping dependencies
>> to a minimum.  The arguments for minimal dependencies are/were:
>> 1. Less overhead for compiling (especially those unfamiliar with lisp development)
>> 2. Less dependence on upstream changes that break their interface
>> 3. Smaller dependencies -> greater freedom to run on multiple lisp flavors
>> 4. Lower dependencies make it easier for distro managers to package and ship
>>    stumpwm outside of quicklisp/compiling with make
>
> Do you think it's feasible (both legally and technically) to include
> well tested versions of the dependencies into the Stumpwm source tree?
> Some extra efforts required from the maintainer will prevent dependency
> bloat :)

Oh no!  Bundling third-party libraries is awful, please don't do it!

-- 
Alex