asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

1 participants
1378 discussions

[asdf-devel] ASDF 2.003
by Faré 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Can ABCL upgrade its ASDF to 2.003 or whichever is latest in the release branch (if possible NOT the master branch)? That would be great. It should fix several bugs that may have hit ABCL users since then. Xach at least reported that upgrading ASDF on ABCL made his software work. As usual, please test on your specific implementation with a few systems before you commit, and please report any bug. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] One good Husband is worth two good Wives; for the scarcer things are, the more they're valued. — Benjamin Franklin

2 1

[asdf-devel] 2.003 = 2.105
by Faré 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

I just committed 2.105, then blessed it as the new RELEASE 2.003 on the release branch. Nobody complained about the concept of COMPILE-FILE* so I decided it would be OK to include it in the 2.0 branch. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Not only is there no contradiction between egoism and altruism, but no altruism is possible without egoism - for what betterment to wish to an other person devoid of selfish desire, to whom any change is indifferent?

1 0

[asdf-devel] documentation patch
by Robert Goldman 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

After all the discussion about Stas's bug, I thought it would be handy to provide docstrings to the two configuration variables in question. Just pushed that patch. We might consider expanding on the material in the manual, as well; I am not sure a real novice would understand the implications. If you like, I will do that. cheers, r

1 0

Re: [asdf-devel] [Sbcl-devel] ASDF in SBCL
by Faré 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

On 24 June 2010 09:41, Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai(a)gmail.com> wrote: > is this a bug, or am i doing something wrong? > > if a bug, shall i record it as ASDF bug or SBCL bug? > > > alendvai@ed101:/usr/share/common-lisp/source$ rlwrap > ~/workspace/sbcl/run-sbcl.sh --no-userinit > (running SBCL from: /home/alendvai/workspace/sbcl) > This is SBCL 1.0.39.21, 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:load-system :asdf) > > ; registering #<SYSTEM :ASDF> as ASDF > INFO: Control stack guard page unprotected > Control stack guard page temporarily disabled: proceed with caution > > fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 17617(tid 140737353979648): > Control stack exhausted > > Welcome to LDB, a low-level debugger for the Lisp runtime environment. > ldb> > > > > > > the backtrace while the rather slow endless recursion is running: > > > 988: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV > (ASDF:DEFSYSTEM :ASDF > :PATHNAME > NIL > :DEPENDS-ON > NIL > :COMPONENTS > NIL) > #<NULL-LEXENV>) > 989: ((LAMBDA (#:G[SYSTEM-DEFINITION-PATHNAME]1191)) ASDF::SYSDEF-FIND-ASDF) > 990: (SB-IMPL::%MAP-FOR-EFFECT-ARITY-1 > #<CLOSURE (LAMBDA #) {10031662F9}> > (ASDF::SYSDEF-CENTRAL-REGISTRY-SEARCH ASDF::SYSDEF-SOURCE-REGISTRY-SEARCH > ASDF::SYSDEF-FIND-ASDF)) > 991: (ASDF:SYSTEM-DEFINITION-PATHNAME "asdf") > 992: (ASDF:FIND-SYSTEM "asdf" NIL) > 993: (ASDF:FIND-COMPONENT "asdf" NIL) > 994: (ASDF::PARSE-COMPONENT-FORM > NIL > (:MODULE "asdf" :PATHNAME #P"/usr/share/common-lisp/source/" :PATHNAME > NIL :DEPENDS-ON NIL :COMPONENTS NIL)) > 995: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV > (ASDF::PARSE-COMPONENT-FORM NIL > (LIST* :MODULE > (ASDF-UTILITIES:COERCE-NAME ':ASDF) > :PATHNAME > #P"/usr/share/common-lisp/source/" > '(:PATHNAME NIL :DEPENDS-ON NIL > :COMPONENTS NIL))) > #<NULL-LEXENV>) > 996: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV > (ASDF:DEFSYSTEM :ASDF > :PATHNAME > NIL > :DEPENDS-ON > NIL > :COMPONENTS > NIL) > #<NULL-LEXENV>) > > -- > attila > Oops, this is an embarrassing bug in ASDF 2.002 and 2.102. I fixed it in 2.103, that also fixes two other bugs. I wonder whether I should merge 2.103 wholesale as 2.003 in the release branch. Probably. The only controversial feature would be the compile-file* change. If I don't hear any objection to including it in 2.003, I will include it. Otherwise, I'll try to include everything from 2.103 but the compile-file* change. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] "How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?" A- "None, the market will take care of it." B- "Every one of them and non-libs too, because we all *are* the market." C- "*I*'ll do it, for a dollar."

1 0

[asdf-devel] ASDF from git and lispworks Personal Edition on windows 7/Vista
by Alessandro Piras 19 Jun '10

19 Jun '10

Hi, The latest ASDF doesn't work well on Windows Vista/7 and Lispworks. LispWorks regards pathnames such as #P"C:/a-dir//anotherdir" as illegal because of the double slashes in it. I could fix it but it's a really ugly kludge not worth sharing. Anyway, I could understand where the problem lies: asdf is creating pathnames where (pathname-directory some-path) contains empty strings. This happens for output fasl files, that ASDF is placing in %APPDATA%\common-lisp\<implementation-name>\C\\path\to\source\file - note the double \\ after the drive letter. Hope this helps, __ Alessandro

2 3

[asdf-devel] GIT branching [was Re: [Bug 587889] Re: bad fasls can poison future build]
by Robert Goldman 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

On 6/16/10 Jun 16 -11:13 AM, Faré wrote: .... > > Robert: any thoughts re: branching? > I am so far from being a git expert, that I will not venture any suggestions. A while ago I read the following article which proposes a branching policy for use with git. It seemed, to my limited understanding, reasonable. Perhaps we could adopt some variant of this policy? http://www.newartisans.com/2009/10/branch-policies-with-git.html He seems to have many more branches than I would have thought necessary. I don't know that we need a "released," "stable devel," and "bleeding edge" as he does. Perhaps some sort of variant where we have a maint branch --- 2.0 with patches for bug fixes devel branch --- moving towards 2.1 ? I'm inclined to think that we could further minimize/simplify by having the devel branch be master. We could also have topic branches, like the one I built in order to do the first TRAVERSE mods for module dependencies. Does that sound reasonable? Feel free to say "no," since I'm making this up as I go along based on half-remembered blog posts. best, r

2 2

[asdf-devel] a hair in :pathname specifications
by Faré 12 Jun '10

12 Jun '10

Looking at Stelian's recent patches to iolib, I saw that he uses things like: (asdf:defsystem :iolib.syscalls ... :pathname #-asdf2 (merge-pathnames "syscalls/" *load-truename*) #+asdf2 "syscalls/" ...) This shocked me, as I new (for having been hit badly by the issue at ITA and having read the code) that you can't use (merge-pathnames ...) like that in a component and need #. instead, since there is no EVAL in parse-component-form. ITA used to have lots of #.(merge-pathnames ...) before I implemented / parsing in our local ASDF (now merged into ASDF 2). Well, it turns out that the defsystem macro itself treats :pathname specially and lets that argument be evaluated unlike other arguments and unlike :pathname for other forms. This interacts badly with some code I've written recently that cleans up the way we normalize specified pathnames for components, my code assuming we were always provided a valid specifier. So the question is: what to do? 1- Should I do nothing, thus having more uniform semantics but breaking compatibility with ASDF 1 and requiring users of defsystem to use #. in such occasions? 2- Should I issue an ASDF 2.0 minor release that re-allows pathname evaluation just for defsystem forms (excluding other forms), thus providing better backwards compatibility? 3- Should I issue an ASDF 2.0 minor release that does pathname evaluation inside parse-component-form, thus providing better backwards compatibility AND extending the semantics so that it be more uniform? [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] A common man marvels at uncommon things; a wise man marvels at the commonplace. — Confucius

3 3

[asdf-devel] (no subject)
by Stelian Ionescu 12 Jun '10

12 Jun '10

The first patch fixes the parsing of the configuration file that I use: (:source-registry :default-registry (:directory "/usr/share/common-lisp/systems") (:directory "/home/hechee/lisp/systems")) Currently I get "One and only one of :INHERIT-CONFIGURATION or :IGNORE-INHERITED-CONFIGURATION is required", even though none is present.

2 8

[asdf-devel] circular dependencies
by Seth Burleigh 11 Jun '10

11 Jun '10

Every once in a while when im creating an asd file and it fails to load, when i change it and attempt to load again it signals ASDF could not load script because Condition ASDF:CIRCULAR-DEPENDENCY was signalled.. Now, i know there is no circular dependency, but I cant yet successfully reproduce it consistently, so can someone maybe explain what I should do when that bug occurs so i can track down the source; i.e., how circularity is detected, etc.

2 1

[asdf-devel] Question about defsystem
by Robert Goldman 07 Jun '10

07 Jun '10

I was just looking over Scott's bugreports and I am wondering a bit about a snippet in defsystem: (defmacro defsystem (name &body options) (destructuring-bind (&key (pathname nil pathname-arg-p) (class 'system) defsystem-depends-on &allow-other-keys) options (let ((component-options (remove-keys '(:defsystem-depends-on :class) options))) `(progn ;; system must be registered before we parse the body, otherwise ;; we recur when trying to find an existing system of the same name ;; to reuse options (e.g. pathname) from ,@(loop :for system :in defsystem-depends-on :collect `(load-system ,system)) (let ((s (system-registered-p ',name))) *** (cond ((and s (eq (type-of (cdr s)) ',class)) (setf (car s) (get-universal-time))) (s (change-class (cdr s) ',class)) (t (register-system (quote ,name) (make-instance ',class :name ',name)))) (%set-system-source-file (load-pathname) (cdr (system-registered-p ',name)))) (parse-component-form nil (list* :module (coerce-name ',name) :pathname ,(determine-system-pathname pathname pathname-arg-p) ',component-options)))))) Look at the cond that's starred -- the first and third branches both cause the DEFINED-SYSTEMS entry for NAME to be updated to the current value of GET-UNIVERSAL-TIME. But the *second* branch does not seem to (unless it happens by some complex chain as a side-effect of CHANGE-CLASS). Can anyone explain why we shouldn't update the DEFINED-SYSTEMS entry in the case where S already exists but of a different type? Or does this happen as a side-effect of CHANGE-CLASS? Perhaps this is worthy of a comment.... best, r

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel