#18 Binary (precompiled) packages

[Rahul Jain]

We really should have a way of making and distributing
binary packages of the cCLan packages. These should
probably be named something like the following:
<package>-<implementation>
since the packaging format should tag the files with
the arch automatically.

where the following are examples:
uncommonsql-cmucl-normal
db-sockets-sbcl

Also useful with this scheme:

- A way of indicating in the .system file that the
package does not work with a specific implementation/arch.
- Package autobuild hosts.

[Rahul Jain]

Logged In: YES
user_id=246924

with asdf development picking up again, maybe this will be
easier to do. a compile-package operation would make sense.

[Rahul Jain]

Logged In: YES
user_id=246924

KMR's asdf:load-compiled-op should help us on the way to
this goal.

Now we need to determine how source and precompiled binaries
should interact. My opinion is that we use the host package
system to ensure that the source and precompiled binaries
are of the same exact version and depend on the same exact
version of the compiler that compiled them.

This way recompilation is not an issue. There aren't really
any undue constraints placed by these requirements, as the
precompiled packages are intended to be used by end-users or
in deployment scenarios where one would not want to be
recompiling the software and won't be upgrading quite as often.

Autobuilding the binaries for various platforms may be an
issue. Debian's autobuilders should work fine for the
packages we submit into debian from cclan, but packages we
don't want going into debian quite yet and packages for
other vendors will need to be handled, unless we consider
precompiled binaries to only be useful as part of a packaged
OS distribution.