asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

5 participants
1375 discussions

[asdf-devel] The Manual
by Dave Penton 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

Greetings. I am writing regarding a post from R. Goldman last year on this mailing list. (I just today subscribed to the list.) My question may already have been canvassed elsewhere. If so point me to the appropriate thread. I am not very adept at picking through the list archives, or maybe I'm just lazy.... Here is the relevant quotefrom the earlier post: > Alas, the manual does not seem to clarify this. This, I think is a > problem with the manual's design. In the discussion of DEFSYSTEM we > have two example pages, and then we have the grammar. The grammar > specifies the /syntax/ of defsystem, but there really isn't any way to > specify the /semantics/ of bits of defsystem. Note that the operations > (object model) bit of the manual does /not/ serve this purpose. It > would be OK for us to specify the semantics in terms of those > operations, but we do not do so. If we were to do so we would need to > add a section that bridges from the syntax to the object model by > specifying how the syntax gets rewritten into the object model. I was thrilled to find this comment - it addresses my concern directly. My question is: Has anyone followed up on this? A manual section on the semantics of defsystem is sorely needed. I am fairly new to Common Lisp (one year). Like most developers I need some kind of system definition facility but find myself a bit exasperated learning to use asdf. My opinion (expressed with gratitude for the efforts of developers and documenters of asdf) is that Chapter 5 talks all around the thing that I most want to know, viz. "What does defsystem do?" After a couple of examples, probably the manual should then contain an informal description of defsystem semantics. I know, of course, that it means to allow one to define a "system." But how? What is the strategy, and how do the bits of the defsystem form implement that strategy? To illustrate my point, I stopped reading and started to grind my teeth a little when I hit this sentence in section 5.3: "The method-form tokens need explaining...." Probably they do need explaining. But at that point the manual has given no context in which to understand an explanation. The next few lines do not actually constitute an explanation in any case. (Or maybe they do. I can be dense sometimes :-) Why is it that I should want to :perform something or :explain something :after? Maybe I also want to :deep-fry something :before or :exchange-mana :around something? (Ok, now I'm being snotty...sorry.) If I were not a relative beginner to Common Lisp I might try to contribute some draft manual sections for consideration by the maintainers. However, I fear that my efforts would only increase the turbidity level. So: Has anyone followed up on this, or does someone intend to do so? Best, - Dave -

3 3

[asdf-devel] FInding a system file in the current directory
by Dave Penton 03 Oct '10

03 Oct '10

Can asdf find a file containing a system definition in the current working directory? (Yes, I have read ch.7 of the manual. It may start to make sense on the third reading, but so far not much joy :-) - Dave -

3 2

[asdf-devel] defsystem behaviour
by Daniel Barlow 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

Apologies for the complete lack of references headers in this mail, but I'm not subscribed to asdf-devel and only see this message in the common-lisp.net archive. On 9/13/10 Sep 13 -8:05 AM, Serhiy Yakovyn wrote: > Is this done intentionally? Robert Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info wrote: > Yes, this is done intentionally. Canonical (i.e., what you get when you > translate a symbol) names for ASDF systems (and other ASDF components) > are downcased. > I /suspect/ (I am not privy to the intentions of the original developer) > that this is because the downcased names --- this policy is applied not > just to systems, but to other components as well --- map better to the way people use modern file-systems. This is, or was once, or should be, a matter of record. I don't know where asdf is currently hosted nor how far back the revision history there goes, but if you look at a sufficiently ancient version of asdf/README you should find something like 122 *** Component Attributes 123 124 **** A name (required) 125 126 This is a string or a symbol. If a symbol, its name is taken and 127 lowercased. The name must be a suitable value for the :name initarg 128 to make-pathname in whatever filesystem the system is to be found. 129 130 The lower-casing-symbols behaviour is unconventional, but was selected 131 after some consideration. Observations suggest that the type of 132 systems we want to support either have lowercase as customary case 133 (unix, mac, windows) or silently convert lowercase to uppercase 134 (lpns), so this makes more sense than attempting to use :case :common, 135 which is reported not to work on some implementations -dan

2 1

[asdf-devel] Old revisions of ASDF in the wild.
by Faré 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

Which legacy versions of ASDF should we support? Xach and/or one of his users had trouble with ASDF from SBCL 1.0.38. # git show sbcl_1_0_38:contrib/asdf/asdf.lisp > /tmp/asdf-from-sbcl-1.0.38.lisp # sha1sum /tmp/asdf-from-sbcl-1.0.38.lisp fd7eab8cd8e5eaeb34264896d62a8bb3847b4d00 We can identify which revision this came from with: # git log sbcl_1_0_38 -- contrib/asdf/asdf.lisp It was 1.0.29.50 by nikodemus which claims to have imported it from git. Of course, whichever revision is latest in asdf.git at that point was not in master when nikodemus pulled, and # for i in $(git rev-list HEAD -- asdf.lisp) ; do echo "$i $(git show "$i":asdf.lisp | sha1sum)" ; done | grep fd7eab8cd8e5eaeb34264896d62a8bb3847b4d00 replies nothing. How come we can't see the same version anywhere in the asdf git repo? Let's find the version with least differences... # for i in $(git rev-list HEAD -- asdf.lisp) ; do echo "$i $(git show "$i":asdf.lisp | diff -uab - /tmp/asdf-from-sbcl-1.0.38.lisp | grep '^[+-]' | wc -l)" ; done | sort -k2 | head -n 1 3ef18cd49ef82c6a2dd92034972019721458d22c 0 What, no difference? Yeah, it's SBCL whitespace canonicalization at work. So the good version was a commit by gwking on 2009-06-09. I'm too lazy to do anything systematic about it right now, but I wanted to record that for posterity. Maybe at some point I'll scum around the SBCL sources and try to extract a few versions of ASDF that we may want to support. Are there any other implementations than SBCL, ECL and ABCL that used to distribute copies of ASDF? We may want to do something similar, and integrate that in our test suite. Now to make sure that upgrades work from ALL these versions, before we release 2.009... soupirs (le sigh). [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Good girls are bad girls that never get caught.

2 1

[asdf-devel] Some points raised
by Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll 26 Sep '10

26 Sep '10

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/93a4b06a66b0b335 1- The new configuration and file searching mechanism is causing some grief. 2- Lack *-user mailing list and need of subscription for questions. Is there a sufficiently large comunity here and do we want to open the list? I would ignore the other complains of a user that woke up with a bad temper. Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

3 10

[asdf-devel] What is broken with asdf-devel ...
by edgar 26 Sep '10

26 Sep '10

Robert Goldman wrote: What is broken about having people post questions to asdf-devel? Just simple: unexceptionally *all* of my posts to asdf-devel so far got bounced back because my posts allegedly reach a spam level of 100%, so there is no way at all for me to ask for help. [Note that this is only another spam filter test, if this message gets bounced back again I will reply to the private email adresses] - edgar -- The author of this email does not necessarily endorse the following advertisements, which are the sole responsibility of the advertiser:

2 2

[asdf-devel] New ASDF maintainer sought
by Faré 23 Sep '10

23 Sep '10

Dear all, I hope that 2.008 will be my last ASDF release. I may still make emergency bug fixes (if any is needed), or merge patches sent to me, but I don't intend to actively develop ASDF anymore. I feel it has reached the point where I wanted it to be, although it took much more efforts than I feared. Just look at the git log to see how hard it was, and read my and Robert's paper for ILC'2010 to get an idea why we did things that way. http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/ilc2010draft.pdf And so, ASDF is looking for a new active maintainer. To volunteer, just start hacking on your own repo, and I'll hand you the keys after I merge your first commit. I intend to focus on XCVB, and its dependencies, cl-iolib and libfixposix. If ASDF moves towards more declarative .asd files, XCVB will certainly try to be compatible. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [...] there is what I call the "roundtrip fallacy": it is a mistake to use, as journalists and some economists do, statistics without logic but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics. — N. C. Taleb, Fooled by Randomness, 2004.

6 21

[asdf-devel] defsystem behaviour
by Serhiy Yakovyn 13 Sep '10

13 Sep '10

Hello all, I have discovered defsystem names systems in a bit opposite way defpackage does: (defsystem :some-system .) and (defsystem "some-system" .) define the same system, when (defsystem "SOME-SYSTEM" .) defines the other system. In contradiction, (defpackage :some-package .) and (defpackage "SOME-PACKAGE" .) define the same package, when (defpackage "some-package" .) defines the other package. Is this done intentionally? It would be good to point this difference in the documentation. Serhiy Y

2 1

[asdf-devel] Feature Request: Better Error Reporting
by Seth Burleigh 11 Sep '10

11 Sep '10

I was wondering if it was possible for some better error reporting. For example, when i was compiling kenny's cl-opengl, this is what i get: ; compiling (DEFVAR *OPENGL-DLL* ...) ; compiling (DEFUN CL-OPENGL-LOAD ...) ; compiling (CL-OPENGL-LOAD) ; compiling (DEFUN GL-BOOLEAN-TEST ...) ; compiling (DFENUM STORAGETYPE ...) ; compiling (DFENUM FILTERTYPES ...) ; /home/seth/install/lisp/cello/cl-opengl/sbcl-1.0.38-linux-x86/cl-opengl.fasl written ; compilation finished in 0:00:00.045 WARNING: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #<COMPILE-OP NIL {CB49DA9}> on #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "cl-opengl" {BD132C1}>. And then i get thrown into the slime debugger with a very nonhelpful error: compile-opp nil? Cant asdf give us the actual error thrown? This has happened multiple times on many libraries.

4 14

[asdf-devel] CMUCL error
by Devon Sean McCullough 06 Sep '10

06 Sep '10

Today's bleeding-edge ASDF fails to compile in CMUCL 1 compiler notes: ../asdf/asdf.lisp:3371:1: error: (during macroexpansion) Error in FDEFINITION: the function MODULE-COMPONENTS-BY-NAME is undefined. Compilation failed. Peace --Devon /~\ \ / Health Care X not warfare / \ PS: compiles fine in ACL

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel