Re: Question about clisp version naming

[Ken Brown <kbrown at cornell dot edu>]

On 3/15/2015 3:14 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
> > I think my new proposal (with /usr/bin/cyglisp.dll and
> > /usr/lib/liblisp.dll.a) will work better.  I don't know whether it's
> > best to split off libclisp and clisp-devel subpackages.  Fedora has a
> > separate clisp-devel package, but it contains a lot of files that are
> > currently (and have always been) in the main clisp package on
> > Cygwin. At the moment, it's probably a higher priority to get
> > something in the distro that Achim can use to build Maxima.  But I'm
> > open to suggestion on all of this.
>
> I have a workaround for maxima and building and testing the package as
> we speak.  We can test the new clisp packaging more thoroughly later on.

Just for testing purposes, I've built a new clisp with 
/usr/bin/cyglisp.dll and /usr/lib/liblisp.dll.a, and I've uploaded it to 
my Cygwin repository:

  http://sanibeltranquility.com/cygwin/

When you get a chance, please test it and see if it allows you to avoid 
your workaround.  If so, I'll think about whether it's worth repackaging 
following Fedora.

There's no rush about this from my point of view.

Ken