September 2010 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[asdf-devel] configuration question
by Daniel Herring 02 Sep '10

02 Sep '10

Hi all, I've been kicking the old LibCL tires lately (tyres for those of you in the UK). ;) With ASDF1, LibCL's configuration required the following steps to be added to the user's lisp rc files. - make sure ASDF is loaded (and trying to guess whether to use the implementation's copy or LibCL's copy) - push LibCL's link directory into *central-registry* - load asdf-binary-locations I think ASDF2 makes these steps easier. - make sure LibCL's ASDF is loaded (ASDF's upgrading handles old implementations, and blocks a downgrade?) - drop a new file in ASDF's config.d - put some translations in that config file So the only potential change to the user's lisp rc file is an added line to load LibCL's ASDF file. The other steps can be done once for all implementations. However, I'm having some difficulty with the config.d file. So far, the syntax is fine; its the naming that I can't get right. When a new version of LibCL is installed, I don't want to auto-uninstall the old version... So my thought was to create files like the following. 50-libcl-2009-10-27.conf # old config 50-libcl-2010-10-27.conf # new, preferred config Unfortunately, string< will load the old file first; thus the old libraries will be found first... Can you think of a natural naming scheme such that the new libraries will be found? Thanks, Daniel

2 1

[asdf-devel] asdf git?
by Zach Beane 02 Sep '10

02 Sep '10

Fare, you mentioned that you committed a new version, 2.126. I'd like to test it by building all Quicklisp projects with it. However, that revision doesn't show up in the git repo I'm using, git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf.git. I see only 2.125. Should I use a different repo, or use some command other than "git pull" to get it? Zach

2 1

[asdf-devel] Should ASDF define many packages?
by Faré 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

sds filed an interesting bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/620579 The question is whether we should avoid creating extra packages, and instead export all relevant functions from ASDF, or should we keep those separate packages ASDF-BOOTSTRAP and ASDF-UTILITIES. Does anyone of you use functions from ASDF-UTILITIES? Does any of you :use ASDF-UTILITIES? Should I just export the same functions from ASDF instead? Would you see a problem with ASDF-UTILITIES either disappearing or becoming an alias for ASDF? PS: we're at ASDF 2.005 (=2.120), and considering the sudden surge of bugs that led to 2.121, there will be a 2.006 soon. Sigh. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [A] Computer [programming] language is inherently a pun — [it] needs to be interpreted by both men & machines. — hbaker

4 10

[asdf-devel] Draft paper for ILC 2010
by Faré 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Dear all, Robert and I have written a paper about ASDF that we intend to submit to ILC'2010, and we'd be delighted to hear about your comments for this draft: http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/ilc2010draft.pdf [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] If normative judgments cannot be rational, then science is actually useless. — François Guillaumat

1 0

[asdf-devel] Is there anything one can do to make old versions of clisp run ASDF2?
by Robert Goldman 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

I am getting complaints about a library that I maintain, which is loaded using ASDF, from CLISP users. These aren't bugs with my system, but when they try to bring up ASDF to load it... fail. This has to do with this error: #<PACKAGE POSIX> has no external symbol with name "UID" I believe there is a CLISP ticket about this. The problem is that the version of CLISP distributed with Ubuntu 10.4 and the one distributed with OpenSUSE 11.2 both are too old to have this fix. It seems like it would be A Good Thing if ASDF2 could be made compatible with Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. Is there an easy work-around for this that we could patch into the current version of ASDF2? Cheers, r

2 1