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

Testing for ASDF 3.3.2 and beyond?
by Faré 27 Apr '18

27 Apr '18

Dear Anton, can you run the below tests, in order or priority? 1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a. 3.3.1.3, as a release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users. 2- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0? We want to merge syntax control, but it's a significant enough change that we don't want it at the same time as the bug fixes. Also... 3- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, but with the following addition just after you load asdf but before you start using it: (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* (copy-readtable nil)) ? Indeed, we want to see what breaks if we disable extensions implementation-specific reader extensions. Test most important on CCL. I don't expect much breakage on other implementations, but it may exist, too. 4- While you're at it, can you also run the test, at least on sbcl, with (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* uiop:*standard-readtable*)) ? This will detect what breaks when we make the default readtable read-only. The thing is, we really want to have this syntax control, but we also want to preserve backward compatibility, and we can't make asdf stricter until every client is fixed (famous last word; of course we failed at exactly that in 3.3.1 — we could build correctly, but would also spuriously rebuild if secondary systems were misnamed; fixed in 3.3.1.3). https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-con… https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86 http://blog.quicklisp.org/2018/01/build-failures-with-asdf-331.html —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org A friend once asked me if I had ever considered terrorism as a means for political change. I replied that yes, I had considered it... and rejected it. Because it only causes change for the worse. Killing innocent people does not promote a culture of peaceful interaction.

5 26

Problems with DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON
by Mark Evenson 09 Apr '18

09 Apr '18

The usage of DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON to specify dependencies that will be satisfied by QL:QUICKLOAD no longer seems to be working in asdf-3.3.1. It used to be the case that to use the [PROVE testing framework][1], it was sufficient to place a … :defsystem-depends-on (:prove-asdf) … clause in the secondary system to be tested, and then upon a QL:QUICKLOAD of this system, the dependency on PROVE was then resolved via a network download from Quicklisp. [1]: https://github.com/fukamachi/prove I believe this was working with asdf-3.2, but testing that assumption is a little hard as asdf-3.3 refuses to degrade itself with a downgrade, and all my systems are running asdf-3.3. Maybe something in Quicklisp changed as well?

5 11

Re: Building from clean on Allegro Windows
by Faré 09 Apr '18

09 Apr '18

I couldn't reproduce with AllegroExpress 10.1 on Linux amd64. So I gave a closer look on the Windows VM, rm'ing all the files in build/results/ before I retried, and looked at the minimal logs for the issue. The warnings were a false lead: Allegro does issue them, but they are actually caught by the build system, so were not the issue. The real issue was that allegro was looking for alisp.exe.dxl instead of alisp.dxl. I thus modified run-tests.sh so it will handle this case with more care. All the tests then passed except test-multiple (which works for me on Linux). Unsurprisingly, I see test-multiple uses ln -s and has an ugly workaround on Windows that doesn't work on sbcl, either. I moved it from using ln -s to using copies, which modified the behavior in ways I admit I don't fully comprehend. I documented the parts I did understand. test-multiple exercises a really dark corner of the design, anyway, one that we're trying to deprecate, badly-named secondary systems. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org You may easily play a joke on a man who likes to argue — agree with him. — Edgar Waston Howe On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.net> wrote: > Got the same issue: > > Warning: FIRST-FEATURE is defined more than once as `operator' in file > build\asdf.lisp. > Warning: IMPLEMENTATION-TYPE is defined more than once as `operator' in > file build\asdf.lisp. > Warning: *IMPLEMENTATION-TYPE* is defined more than once as `variable' > in file build\asdf.lisp. > Warning: OPERATING-SYSTEM is defined more than once as `operator' in > file build\asdf.lisp. > Warning: ARCHITECTURE is defined more than once as `operator' in file > build\asdf.lisp. > > I'll see if I can figure out what causes this. EVAL-WHEN is a likely > candidate. > > More as I have news, > r

2 1

Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL
by Eric Timmons 04 Apr '18

04 Apr '18

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Eric Timmons <etimmons(a)mit.edu> wrote: > I've also opened the following bug on SBCL to let them know about it: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1750466. This bug has been fixed upstream and should probably appear in SBCL 1.4.7. Since they got that fixed before ASDF 3.3.2 got out, is it worth reverting commit 21e3a85? That would keep the return of `parse-define-package-form` unchanged and the warnings would only show up in SBCL 1.4.1-1.4.6 inclusive. -Eric

1 0

"deprecated recursive use" warning
by Attila Lendvai 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

dear list, shall i be concerned about this? WARNING: Deprecated recursive use of (ASDF/OPERATE:OPERATE 'ASDF/LISP-ACTION:LOAD-OP '("cffi/c2ffi-generator")) while visiting (CFFI/C2FFI::GENERATE-LISP-OP "hu.dwim.zlib" "c2ffi-spec" "zlib.h") - please use proper dependencies instead it happens due to this in cffi/src/c2ffi/asdf.lisp: (defmethod perform ((op generate-lisp-op) (c c2ffi-file)) ... (unless (component-loaded-p :cffi/c2ffi-generator) (load-system :cffi/c2ffi-generator)) ... ) that system only needs to get loaded when the action is executed. or is it safe to ignore that warning long term? -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” — J. Reuben Clark (1871–1961)

4 7

follow-up about handling .info file and index
by Robert Dodier 22 Mar '18

22 Mar '18

Hi, I was asking recently about how to handle a .info file and its index (CL) in ASDF. What I finally settled on is this. When the operation is COMPILE-OP, the .info file is copied to same location where the index fasl will go (because the index has some code to read the .info and it assumes the .info is in the same place as the fasl). In the .asd file, I say (defsystem-depends-on "info-index") and (:info-index "foo-index") for the component foo-index.lisp. This seems to be working as intended. I've pasted the code I devised as a PS below. If anyone has any comments about it, I would be interested to hear it. I have a couple of specific questions about the code, which you can see in the comments. (1) In the class definition for INFO-INDEX, it seems to be necessary to intone (type :initform "lisp"). Is that actually necessary? If so, why is that? I would have expected (on little reason) that the parent class CL-SOURCE-FILE would supply that. (2) In INPUT-FILES, why doesn't (info-index-type c) yield "lisp"? Doesn't INFO-INDEX have an accessor INFO-INDEX-TYPE? I may well be very confused about simple things. Thank you for your patience, I appreciate it. Robert Dodier PS. info-index.lisp: ;; info-index.lisp -- ASDF component type for Maxima documentation index ;; copyright 2018 by Robert Dodier ;; I release this work under terms of the GNU General Public License (require 'asdf) (in-package :asdf) (defclass info-index (cl-source-file) ((type :initform "lisp"))) ;; ISN'T THIS INHERITED FROM CL-SOURCE-FILE ?? (defmethod perform ((o load-source-op) (c info-index)) (call-next-method)) (defmethod perform ((o load-op) (c info-index)) (call-next-method)) (defmethod input-files ((o compile-op) (c info-index)) (let* ((foo (call-next-method)) ;; WHY DOESN'T THE FOLLOWING LINE WORK ?? ;; (bar (info-index-type c)) (bar "lisp") (baz (merge-pathnames (make-pathname :type bar) (first foo)))) (list baz))) (defmethod output-files ((o compile-op) (c info-index)) (call-next-method)) (defun silly-copy (in-file out-file) (unless (equalp in-file out-file) ;; silently refuse to copy file to itself (with-open-file (in in-file) (with-open-file (out out-file :direction :output :if-exists :supersede) (do ((c (read-char in nil) (read-char in nil))) ((null c)) (write-char c out)))))) (defmethod perform ((o compile-op) (c info-index)) (let* ((system-name (component-name (component-system c))) (info-name (make-pathname :name system-name :type "info")) (info-in-file (merge-pathnames info-name (first (input-files o c)))) (info-out-file (merge-pathnames info-name (first (output-files o c))))) (silly-copy info-in-file info-out-file) (call-next-method)))

3 5

using most recent .asd file, if multiple are present
by Robert Dodier 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hi, I wonder if it's possible that if multiple .asd's with the same name are present, I can ensure that the .asd with the most recent timestamp is used. The use case I have in mind is that I'm trying to set up a system to download automatically-generated tarballs which contain a snapshot of a project. Snapshots contain whatever was available (in Git) at the time the tarball is generated. These are unpacked (by Quicklisp) and all files in the tarball are given timestamps equal to the time at which the tarball was unpacked (not the time the tarball was generated and not the time of the most recent file modification or commit). Each tarball has a different name (derived from Git project name + most recent commit hash) so there will be multiple .asd files with the same name in different directories. But since they all have different time stamps, I think I'm in good shape: I just need to be able to identify the most recent one. I see the ASDF manual says: "When looking in a tree, if one system is found, the search succeeds. If multiple systems are found, the consequences are unspecified: the search may succeed with any of the found systems, or an error may be raised. ASDF currently returns the first system found, ...". Is there any way to intervene to return a specific system, specifically the most recent one? Thank you once again for your help, Robert Dodier

2 1

Finding out from where the .asd was loaded and/or referencing a non-executable data file
by Robert Dodier 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Hi, I am resuming my tinkering on the Maxima interface to ASDF. I have bumped into a kind of minor problem for which I don't see a solution. Maxima can read .info files for documentation items. An index file (Lisp) which is created ahead of time (not run time) tells where the items are in the .info. The .asd, index, and .info are all in the same directory. Some code in the index file tells Maxima to read the .info from the same place from which the index is loaded (via *LOAD-PATHNAME*). That works great when the asd is loaded via LOAD-SOURCE-OP since *LOAD-PATHNAME* points to the directory where the .info file is. But when the asd is loaded via LOAD-OP, it doesn't work, since *LOAD-PATHNAME* points into the place that ASDF puts fasls. I gather from the ASDF reference manual that there isn't any way to load, without compiling, only the index file (I'm looking at "How do I mark a source file to be loaded only and not compiled?"). So I'm thinking about some other way to locate the .info file. Is there a special variable or something which tells the path from which the .asd is being loaded? I looked at the documentation and the list of external symbols but couldn't puzzle out anything. The more general idea is that the system contains a non-Lisp data file. Is there a general approach to work with that? Thanks for any light you can shed on this problem. Robert Dodier

3 7

Best Practice for an ASDF Variable Like *compile-file-failure-behaviour*
by Mark H. David 10 Mar '18

10 Mar '18

As has been discussed here over the years, asdf:*compile-file-failure-behaviour* is :warn on most platforms, but it is notoriously :error on #+sbcl. So what would you do if you wanted to change asdf:*compile-file-failure-behaviour* to be :warn on #+SBCL? How would you recommend to change it. Where? I don't want to really have to impose an init file on everyone. Also, I don't really want to necessarily make this global across every use of ASDF, but let's say I just want it to apply to one main system and all subsystems loaded as part of this. I cannot think of anything better than a top-level setq in the .asd file of the system, something like this? #+sbcl (setq asdf:*compile-file-failure-behaviour* :warn) What else can one do that's any better? Maybe there's a less crude way, like something like an around method that wraps around the compile/load. I'm really just barely a novice user, so I'm sorry this if this is such a naive question. If there's a simple example one could provide or point me to that does this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mark

3 7

package-inferred-systems and primary-system-name
by Eric Timmons 08 Mar '18

08 Mar '18

If a have a package-inferred-systems "a" and "a/b/c", the following code used to return "a": (primary-system-name (find-system "a/b/c")) But after commit 069cd2a6 it returns nil. Happy to patch it, but I wanted to check how to do it before starting. The root cause right now is that system-source-file returns nil for the inferred systems. The easiest fix would be to have it return the asd file for the primary system. That's probably not *technically* correct since the system isn't actually defined in that file, but it's probably correct in the principle of least surprise sense. Thoughts? -Eric

3 4