> Ouch, we weren't aware of all these issues when we approved common-lisp-
> controller in FESCo. :-( It was "sold" to us as something great and working
> perfectly. I wasn't aware that it didn't actually work at all at this time
> and I strongly doubt the rest of FESCo was either. It makes no sense to have
> a packaging guideline mandate using something which doesn't work.
> The alternative to common-lisp-controller, for libraries at least, is
> to have lots of subpackages:...
> I can see why Debian went with
> common-lisp-controller .... It helps keep insanity at bay.
Common-lisp-controller would probably be very helpful for libraries if it *did* work.
But it appears that mandating it was premature.
> But I think we need to have an escape clause for applications, and
> also for libraries that take a significant amount of time/space to
No escape clause needed for applications.
The 2nd sentence of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp
"This document does not describe conventions and customs for application programs that are written in Common Lisp."
I think it should be backed down until it's *really* fixed
(awakening upstream as necessary).