June 2009 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[asdf-devel] recursiveness of :FORCE
by Tobias C. Rittweiler 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

When I use :FORCE, in most cases I do want to recompile solely the specified system, not all its dependencies. In my ideal world, :FORCE T would recompile the specified system only, and :FORCE :ALL would recompile it along its dependencies. Of course that would be backwards-incompatible, so perhaps better stick with the current behaviour for :FORCE T, but add :FORCE :SYSTEM, or :FORCE :SHALLOW, or similiar. -T.

2 5

Re: [asdf-devel] [cclan-list] How to depend on a system optionally?
by Nikodemus Siivola 21 Jul '09

21 Jul '09

2009/5/18 Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.info>: > Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote: >> I've read several times that it's a head ache to configure optional >> dependencies with ASDF. >> >> How true is that? Could we perhaps provide another clause >> :OPTIONALLY-DEPEND-ON in DEFSYSTEM which would load a system only if >> available? Doesn't :WEAKLY-DEPENDS-ON do what you want? Cheers, -- Nikodemus

4 14

[asdf-devel] announce : asdf version 1.353
by Gary King 21 Jun '09

21 Jun '09

* The return of lisp mode to asdf.lisp, * website tweaks, * extended the test suite to CCL * Added a new webpage with the most recent [test results][1] Enjoy! [1]: http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/test-results.html -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

1 0

[asdf-devel] Could ASDF subsume faslpath?
by Daniel Herring 10 Jun '09

10 Jun '09

http://code.google.com/p/faslpath/ While I don't think its right for everything, faslpath follows a Java-style naming convention that does simplify the build process. How hard would it be to mix this in with ASDF? So project.asdf would simply specify a (:faslpath toplevel.lisp) or something. Just a thought... I don't have time in the forseeable future to work on it. :( - Daniel

3 2

[asdf-devel] announce: asdf 1.351
by Gary King 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

This version adds `system-compile`, `system-load` and `system-test` as synonyms for the obvious `oos` analogues. It also mucks a bit with the website. In particular, there is a [getting started][gs] guide and the [manual][] has seen reformatting. [gs]: http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/getting-started.html [manual]: http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/manual.html comments much appreciated. -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

4 5

[asdf-devel] ASDF 1.351 (and git confusion).
by Gary King 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

I've pushed version 1.351 of asdf and various ls operations show that it is indeed on http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/public_html/ asdf.git. When I clone this, however, I'm not seeing any of the recent changes. Does anyone know what else needs to happen? thanks, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

3 5

[asdf-devel] getting asdf to the masses
by Gary King 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

Is there any current mechanism to get the latest (and therefore one hopes greatest) version of ASDF into SBCL / Allegro CL / Clozure CL, etc.? If not, I think there should be. What would it look like? thanks, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

3 2

Re: [asdf-devel] ASDF:LOAD-SYS
by Gary King 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

Hi Svante, (Sorry for the slow response... sending to the ASDF list too) I sympathize with your question: "the most common thing to do with ASDF, why do we make that harder than necessary?" I believe that the answer would have been that ASDF is philosophically based on performing "operations" on "systems" and so it was better (in some, perhaps, Platonic sense) <smile>. I actually agree with you and think that we should add something like (load-op <system> &key ...) to ASDF public interface. If there isn't a lot of disagreement, I'll do that soon. thanks for you question, On May 22, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Svante Carl v. Erichsen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello! > > This is just a little question or request that has perhaps been asked > numerous times before. > > Why is there no predefined macro for the by far most used asdf user > operation? > > Instead of (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op 'my-system), I'd like to just > do > (asdf:load-sys 'my-system). > > Best wishes, > Svante > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkoXI9IACgkQFZBb0npmKsz9QgCdHtD40W2PMvra4R8HE8IRwXHg > ynMAn1EJzgFvSPx1Ygbzc+Bt4IMF4JnS > =Qf0O > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

3 3