suggesstions for eclipse build process

[Iban Hatchondo]

Sorry for the delay of this post, but I wasn't knowing the list mail 
size restriction (40 Ko), and by the way, I just learned that my 
agreement (as administrator) was required.

Christian Lynbech wrote:
> Here follows a patch with a proposal for some changes to how eclipse
> is built and installed.

I agree, this separation is needed.

> In `system.lisp' I have changed the require from :clx to :cmucl-clx as
> the CLX package is named on a debian system. If :clx is widely used as
> well, it probably should remain as it is.

Maybe we should ask Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd at debian.org> for this 
distinction. On my system, cmucl comes from cons.org, and CLX appears as 
:CLX in *features*

> As for the installation, I have added a copying of the lisp binary
> into the installation directory as well. Since we have a full
> standalone core (if that is what you choose) one should not be
> dependant on the lisp installation of the system. This bit whe I
> upgraded CMUCL on my system and I could no longer run eclipse because
> the core was generated under a different version than the lisp
> executable. But I will understand if somebody thinks this to be
> slightly controversial (with ACL you would probably want to use
> `generate-application' which does essentially the same).

I don't have an opinion on that part. I'd be happy to have some other 
opinion on that point. Maybe a new make clause like "application", could 
be an alternative ?

Regards,
!ban.