October 2015 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

trouble with :also-exclude
by Attila Lendvai 08 Oct '15

08 Oct '15

i'm not sure what's the expected behavior. what i'm trying to achieve is to exclude some dirs inside my ~/common-lisp/ -------- $ cat ~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/00-excluded-systems.conf (:also-exclude "sbcl" "disabled-systems") $ rlwrap sbcl --no-userinit --no-sysinit This is SBCL 1.2.4.debian, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp. More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>. SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty. It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the distribution for more information. * (require :asdf) ("ASDF" "asdf" "UIOP" "uiop") ;; force asdf upgrade * (asdf:load-system :asdf) T * (gethash "cl-postgres+local-time" asdf::*source-registry*) #P"/home/alendvai/common-lisp/disabled-systems/local-time.old-darcs/cl-postgres+local-time.asd" T * asdf::*source-registry-exclusions* (".bzr" ".cdv" ".git" ".hg" ".pc" ".svn" "CVS" "RCS" "SCCS" "_darcs" "_sgbak" "autom4te.cache" "cover_db" "_build" "debian") * asdf/upgrade:*asdf-version* "3.1.5.18" ---------- it may or may not be normal that *source-registry-exclusions* doesn't contain "disabled-systems". (trace asdf/source-registry::process-source-registry-directive :print asdf::*source-registry-exclusions*) the output of the above^ trace suggests that it gets processed (and recorded into a dynamically bound variable? which is then thrown away?). any hints? -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “The worst enemy of clear thinking is the propensity to hypostatize, i.e. to ascribe substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts.” — Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), 'The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science' (1962)

2 3

monolithic-lib-op
by Faré 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

Difficulties making monolithic-lib-op portable suggest that it (and maybe also lib-op) should output an object file as if by ld -r rather than a static library. Indeed, there is no *portable* way to combine several .a files into a single one on a BSD system (including MacOS X). Or should that be the case only on said systems? In any case, that's ugly, and to make a distinction, we'd have to extend os.lisp to also distinguish bsd-style unix from gnu-style unix. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It is said that pragmatism trumps ideology in a crisis. What actually happens in a crisis, certainly in this one, is that the ruling party gets to rechristen its ideology as pragmatism. — Christopher Caldwell

4 7

Bundle operations
by Robert Goldman 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Are these reasonable across different Lisp implementations? E.g., what would it mean to try to invoke a DLL-OP on ACL, Lispworks, or CCL? It seems like we are advertising a lot of functionality that we do not, in fact, support. I'd like to prune this down in some way, eliminating operations on implementations that don't support them. thanks, r

4 12