Lispbox-like emacs settings

I've just bought the dead-tree version of Practical Common Lisp and some time to go through it. To get started quickly, the author used to provide a "Lisp in a box" that isn't maintained any longer. There's a fork but it's broken on Linux x64 (it could probably be fixed but it's no quickstart).

I got SBCL, Emacs and Slime, what else a beginner reading Seibel's tutorial needs? From what I've read here Quicklisp and Paredit are recommended too? I'd like to keep things simple until I'm confortable with Lisp and Emacs. What's the easiest way?

>>1
You don't need Quicklisp for PCL. With a standard Common Lisp implementation and Emacs/Slime you're ready to go.

>>1
Paredit and maybe Redshank are fine too. Besides SBCL, you might also set up ClozureCL, CLISP, ECL if you want to see how implementations differ - it's not hard to set up SLIME to work with them all. Obviously you should also install ASDF if you want to use any libraries or write your own.

>>1 I'm "maintaining" the fork. It's broken on (at least one) 32-bit Linux also. I should get around to making a new release soon. This time I'm conna compile it statically and hopefully it'll be more reliable on different Linii. (Yes I'm an ENTERPRISE QUALITY JAVA PROGRAMMER and have no idea what I'm doing).

>>2
Indeed, it seems from the first "practical" chapter that Slime would be necessary and sufficient. Still, I have installed Quicklisp out of curiosity and it looks like a neat manager. I have then reinstalled Slime through it, since it was only a command line away.

>>3
ASDF is already set up from an older Stumpwm install (which I don't use at the moment). I've read on the wiki that there's a trend to deprecate it in favor of Quicklisp, but it's still widely used and has may be has some other advantages(?)

I will save for later your other recommendations. I'm afraid to be overloaded with new things as I like to understand a bit what I'm doing. Of course I'd love to see how implementations differ: that's rewarding knowledge when you're a bit more advanced.

>>4
Hey that's great. You've got users, see. I've checked the source files but I wouldn't be of much help right now (besides reporting bug). I will follow further developments.
On a side note, Lispbox install is a double-click matter on Windows 7 64bits.

>>5
I've read on the wiki that there's a trend to deprecate it in favor of Quicklisp, but it's still widely used and has may be has some other advantages(?)
Quicklisp is just a library manager, not your make/build system/etc. Quicklisp uses ASDF behind the scenes, and ASDF uses CL's package and compiler facilities behind the scenes. Confusing Quicklisp with ASDF is like confusing libraries (and their files) with packages (which are just a way of managing symbols).

To put it differently, I usually installed(svn/git/etc grab or untar/unzip/...) my libraries by myself or using asdf-install, QL just handles that for you like a package manager would do, but a package manager that builds from the source would still call make to actually build the binaries.

>>6,7
Oh, that was a pretty stupid misconception. That's perfectly clear now.