[gentoo-lisp] Emerge in Common Lisp

[gentoo-lisp] Emerge in Common Lisp

[Crystalsun]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

Anyone thought about implementing Emerge in Common Lisp?
I guess it could be useful due to the interactiveness Common Lisp provides, and Python doesn't (at least not enough of it). For example, when emerging a package, if an error occures, the whole process will die since the merge of the current atom. However, if emerge was written in Common Lisp, it could be possible to interactively debug the error and continue the process, which, overall, means more user control of what's happening and better hotfixes, thanks to the fact that REPL is part of the language.
I know it may sound ambitious, but at least it seems like an interesting idea to me, would be great if anyone has thoughts on this topic

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 761 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-lisp] Emerge in Common Lisp

[Akater]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1495 bytes --]

Crystalsun <crystalsun@protonmail.com> writes:

> Anyone thought about implementing Emerge in Common Lisp?
I did. I know some other people did, too.

> I guess it could be useful due to the interactiveness Common Lisp
> provides
Agree.

> if emerge was written in Common Lisp, it could be possible to
> interactively debug the error and continue the process
Not neccesarily. ebuilds are still ebuilds, namely Unix shell
scripts. Most of my problems come from them not from emerge per se.

> I know it may sound ambitious
It does.

> but at least it seems like an interesting idea to me, would be great
> if anyone has thoughts on this topic
Portage is updated regularly. EAPI evolves. Try estimating how many
man-hours are put into it. That will give you some perspective on
man-hours needed to maintain another implementation. Make some research
on existing attempts (Paludis).

The most promising way in my amateur-ish opinion would be to localise
some task which Portage is slow at, and try to reimplement it (100%
correctly!) for immediate and hopefully long-lasting gains. At least
that could provide the project with some momentum and attention early
on.

Another attractive goal would be the ability to resolve
dependencies interactively. I'm not even where to start with this
though. Maybe if user could increase the backtracking threshold
(emerge --backtrack=n) without restarting the whole thing, that would
already be worth it, who knows. That would require lazy search of some
kind.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-lisp] Emerge in Common Lisp

[Chema Alonso]

Sounds amazing, unfortunatelly we lack the manpower to get to it.

You can always open a bug at bugzilla [1] to ask for this new package
and track its development in case it occurs one day.

In this case, please reply to this message with the bug number and
I'll assign it to the Common Lisp project.

Thanks for your contribution.

Regards.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 09:05:11AM -0500, Crystalsun wrote:
> Anyone thought about implementing Emerge in Common Lisp?
> I guess it could be useful due to the interactiveness Common Lisp provides, and Python doesn't (at least not enough of it). For example, when emerging a package, if an error occures, the whole process will die since the merge of the current atom. However, if emerge was written in Common Lisp, it could be possible to interactively debug the error and continue the process, which, overall, means more user control of what's happening and better hotfixes, thanks to the fact that REPL is part of the language.
> I know it may sound ambitious, but at least it seems like an interesting idea to me, would be great if anyone has thoughts on this topic