On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Nikodemus
> 2009/7/5 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@...>:
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Christophe Rhodes<csr21@...> wrote:
>>> "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr@...> writes:
>>> I'm not desperately surprised that building from ECL fails; as far as
>>> I know, it's never been supported.
>> Some of us would like that to happen.
>>> If you have a need to make it
>>> supported, then patches to that effect would be welcome,
>> I sent a trivial patch for the very failure Tobias reported.
>> It gets us a bit far in order to investigate other problem.
>> Would you mind taking a look at it and possibly apply it?
> I'm interested in ECL as a supported build host, but I don't think
> merging patches that each get one bit further in the build is the best
> way. I at least would much rather merge a singular "add ELC is a
> working host" patch or patch series.
Sure, I understand that. One may think of my earlier patch as one
of the patch series.
Note that I had to convince ECL maintainers that the change was necessary
in order to get SBCL working with ECL. Others -- as I've seen through
private emails -- are interested as well.
> Of course, _sharing_ baby-step patches on the lists is perfectly
> sensible. I just don't think they necessarily belong in CVS before
> they actually accomplish their stated goal.
> -- Nikodemus