September 2014 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[Asdf-devel] Registering preloaded systems for Quicklisp/ASDF
by Dave Cooper 05 Jun '15

05 Jun '15

Hi, I know this has been discussed, but what is currently the best practice for registering a preloaded system after loading Quicklisp? That is, I have a pre-built image with some Quicklisp/ASDF systems in it, which were loaded through so-called monolithic-fasls (now known as compile-bundles). So the pre-built image doesn’t itself have ASDF or Quicklisp. A downstream user then loads Quicklisp and ASDF (I take steps to ensure that they are loading the matching version of ASDF and Quicklisp as was used to build the image). Now I need to do something to tell Quicklisp and ASDF that certain systems are already loaded in this image, so it won’t try to re-load them as depended-upon systems. In this specific case, I don't want it to try to fetch and reload Gendl when the user does (ql:quickload ...) on an application which :depends-on :gendl (because gendl is already built into this image). asdf/find-system:register-preloaded-system seems like it should be the answer if we’re talking about plain ASDF, because it will prevent ASDF from raising a “missing-component” error for the system in question, if some other system :depends-on it and yet no source code is found. But in my case I can’t guarantee that “no source code is found.” The source might be there in the quicklisp dist directory. So apparently I need something stronger than register-preloaded-system? Or something else? -- My Best, Dave Cooper

3 21

[Asdf-devel] Semantics of asdf:system-relative-pathname
by Ralf Mattes 04 Sep '14

04 Sep '14

Hello list, I just stumbled overthe following strangeness [1]: I've some code in directory foo that contains two asdf files, foo.asd and foo-test.asd, the later contains the following definition: (defsystem "foo-test" :version "0.1" :pathname "t" :serial t ..... ) Now, if I evaluate (asdf:system-relative-pathname :foo-test "baz" :type "rsc") I get a pathname relative to the _asdf-file_, while evaluating: (merge-pathnames "baz.rsc" (slot-value (asdf:find-system :foo-test) 'asdf::absolute-pathname)) yields the correct/expected pathname (i.e. one that honors the pathname spec. of the asdf system). Is this really intended behavior or just an oversight? Cheers, Ralf Mattes Footnotes: [1] in the sense of not following the principle o fleast astonishment

3 4

Re: [Asdf-devel] startup times and initialize-source-registry
by Ben Hyde 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Would changing (:tree <path>) so it accepts an optional argument be less adhoc? Possibly (:tree <path> &key (depth nil) (don-not-recure-after-asdf-encountered nil)) That said this would have little if any value in my use case. I point ask it to sweep over my the directory where all my coding lives, and most of the directories in there are not lisp, and so there ain’t any asd files in those. - ben

4 15

[Asdf-devel] Minor minimakefile nit
by Robert P. Goldman 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

The minimakefile help lists: archive alias for command make-and-publish-archive but make-and-publish-archive is not listed as a command in the help, nor in the makefile. Is this description out of date? Question: can we do a long help for individual commands, like make help archive? As an aside, I would say that if one is interested in making CL a serious scripting contender, some equivalent of perl's Getopt::Long library for command line parsing (perhaps Didier's Clon would fit the bill?), and pod inline documentation is going to be critical. I pushed a comment on the makefile to explain at the top how to get help. Cheers, r

3 2

[Asdf-devel] Problem with Minimakefile branch -- was Re: Merging experimental-submodules
by Robert P. Goldman 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Kambiz Darabi wrote: > I don't know how many people are devs and how many people just 'users' > in the sense that they clone the repo and use it without caring about > the dependencies of asdf. > > But your point is definitively valid. Actually, Kambiz's point is a good one, and it illustrates a real problem with the minimakefile branch. With the old makefile, all someone needed to do if they were to checkout and test ASDF was to grab the git repo, and type make test l=<my lisp> Now this process is substantially more complicated because now the user will have to go to substantially more work to get our not extensively tested CL infrastructure up and running. We should seriously consider revising the minimakefile so that testing does not require CL scripting, but instead goes back to using make and bash alone. Best, r

2 3

[Asdf-devel] Merging experimental-submodules
by Robert P. Goldman 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Now is the time to speak up if there's any reason I should *not* merge the experimental-submodules branch, which will make ASDF freestanding by pulling in its build dependencies. I'll probably merge this and push sometime tomorrow. Cheers, r

3 4