asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

2 participants
1376 discussions

Loading only fasl files
by Greg Bennett 21 Apr '24

21 Apr '24

This may be a duplicate query. I posted from another account which bounced. This may be the account with which I an 'registered'. Apologies for the noise. Hello from Greg Bennett who is trying to debug some compilation issues in Allegro. I have what I believe to be a completely compiled project, consisting of several systems, and I would like to load only its fasl files. Specifically I do not want to re-compile the source files which would replace those fasls. I have looked at the manual in the hope that load-bundle-op might work, but I see that this requires *compiling* the source into a single fasl. Perhaps (probably!) I'm missing something. Any advice/assistance much appreciated. Cheers Greg

1 0

Documentation "The defsystem form"
by Mirko Scholz 22 Mar '24

22 Mar '24

Hello, using asdf with quicklisp it seems that the :version component is not optional but actually required. Maybe this can be mentioned in §6.1 "The defsystem form" The documentation reads - This system also defines a bunch of metadata. While it is optional to define these fields (and other fields like :bug-tracker, :mailto, :long-name, :long-description, :source-control), it is strongly recommended to define the fields :description, :version, :author, and :licence, especially if you intend your software to be eventually included in Quicklisp. If I try to ql:quickload: ====================================================== (asdf:defsystem #:foo-pkg :description "foo pkg" :author "MS" :components ((#:file "package"))) ====================================================== I get ====================================================== Error while trying to load definition for system foo-pkg from pathname /home/mirko/quicklisp/local-projects/foo-pkg/foo-pkg.asd: don't recognize component type #:FILE [Condition of type ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM:LOAD-SYSTEM-DEFINITION-ERROR] ====================================================== with the :version component it works ====================================================== (asdf:defsystem #:foo-pkg :description "foo pkg" :author "MS" :author "0.0.1" :components ((#:file "package"))) ====================================================== ====================================================== CL-USER> (ql:quickload "foo-pkg") To load "foo-pkg": Load 1 ASDF system: foo-pkg ; Loading "foo-pkg" ("foo-pkg") ====================================================== Regards

2 1

Readtable not bound to standard around compilation
by Scott＠sympoiesis.com 28 Feb '24

28 Feb '24

Hi all! I just ran into something surprising. This is with ASDF 3.2.1, packaged with Quicklisp. I am using Named-Readtables. I had '*readtable*' set to a nonstandard readtable, then did quickload of a system unrelated to the one that defines and uses that readtable. The compilation failed; after I did '(in-readtable :common-lisp)' and tried again, it succeeded. A quick glance at the ASDF source code shows that it binds '*readtable*' to a standard readtable in some cases, such as to read a '.asd' file, but not in 'uiop/lisp-build/compile-file*', nor in 'asdf/lisp-action:perform-lisp-compilation'. Wouldn't it make sense to do that? -- Scott

6 10

Fwd: Readtable not bound to standard around compilation
by Scott L. Burson 27 Feb '24

27 Feb '24

[Oops — just noticed that I had sent this only to Faré, not the list.] Oh wow, that was even more of an earful than I was expecting :-) ... I've now read your syntax-control document. Before I found it, I tried to think of solutions, and came up with something very much like your Proposal 2. You say that it depends on Proposal 1 (which you had hoped to put into effect immediately), but I'm not sure about that; I think it could stand alone. Seems like it would require fewer changes to existing systems, which might make it more politically doable. WDYT? -- Scott On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:32 AM Faré <fahree(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, and as for binding variables around files, this has subtly different > meanings when compiling a file, loading its fasl or loading its source. And > if done wrong it can easily break fasl concatenation or linking on ecl and > mkcl, where you just can't bind around the loading of individual fasls, > whereas with source loading you can't not bind, so now the user is > responsible to make sure his code works both ways and the binding only > really matters at compile-time—which kind of is already a development > constraint, just unarticulated, unenforced, and undetected until a subtle > bug hits someone. > > In the end you can only protect the developer from himself so much, when > you can't change the semantics of CL itself across twenty implementations > many unmaintained. > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 11:16 Faré <fahree(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> In the past, to introduce changes a fraction as compatibility-breaking >> (e.g. making utf-8 the default, or changing the internals of OPERATION), I >> would write up an explanation why the change is desired that anyone can >> read, discuss on the mailing list, write the code but keep it unmerged or >> disabled, make an announcement for the intended future breaking change, go >> over all of Quicklisp with Anton Vodonosov's cl-test-grid, locate all the >> offenders there, and send patches to each and everyone, wait a year if the >> old behavior used to be officially documented and supported, only a few >> weeks if it was a forbidden internals dependency, run the test again, give >> a last warning to those who didn't merge the patches, sometimes fork the >> systems left unmaintained to a new home, then finally make the change and >> announce it. And be ready to handle all the angry authors of proprietary >> code not in Quicklisp that you failed to previously contact. >> >> For syntax-control (see my branch, that needs much love merging with >> 3.3.7), we never reached that point, if only because we were never >> satisfied with the complexity of the code (speaking for myself at least, I >> suspect for RPG also to a point, but he can opine otherwise if needed). >> There are many special variables beside *readtable* that control syntax >> (e.g. some systems try to make double-float the default—with "interesting" >> side effects to other systems compiled later, more subtle than the big >> obvious breakage when the readtable is wrong or corrupted). And users >> define more such variables as they extend the language. So now you want to >> maintain a dynamic list of symbols, some in packages not yet defined, that >> you want to track, save and restore. Next your users will want to bind the >> values of some of these variables around some systems, modules or >> components. The code is big and messy, and it isn't even obviously "the >> right thing" overall, though a lot of elements of it are, and every piece >> is needed somehow. >> >> There's also the question of whether the default readtable should be THE >> "standard" readtable (immutable on some implementations, not on others), or >> some shared mutable readtable copied from it (will break many CCL >> extensions), or from the magic initial readtable that is not standard and >> that some will mutate (the most backward compatible option, so probably the >> one ASDF should pick, though it's ugly, unless you want to wrestle some >> more with the community). >> >> Should we merge the whole messy thing that solves the entire problem? >> Only the small and clean part that is obviously right but clearly >> insufficient? Each time we make such a change, we have to pay a lot to >> overcome a big incompatibility hurdle. If the solution isn't fully >> satisfactory, then we are setting ourselves up for yet another round (or >> several) of such costly change(s). >> >> I'm out of the Common Lisp community (moved to Gerbil Scheme), but >> whoever wants to tackle this challenge for good better makes sure they (and >> the community!) are ready to pay the price for the transition, and multiple >> times so if they don't get it right on the first try. Oh, and once you take >> on the job, you'll be hated by some part of the community whether you >> subsequently make the change or don't. >> >> Good luck! >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 10:15 Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.info> wrote: >> >>> I think this is still true, but... we cannot be discussing ASDF 3.2.1 >>> here. It was released almost 7 years ago, and for whatever reason Zach >>> refuses to update. The current version is 3.3.7 >>> >>> Please get a more recent ASDF and try again. I *believe* that this >>> behavior is still in place: Faré proposed the "syntax control" patch to fix >>> this, but we decided we had no easy path to introducing it, because it >>> would break other code (admittedly not of good style) that relies on the >>> old behavior of having the readtable setting leak out of one file into >>> another. See >>> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/merge_requests/86 >>> >>> Any non-backwards compatible modification to ASDF -- even to the extent >>> of raising a deprecation warning -- has led to temper-tantrums in the CL >>> community... >>> >>> On 21 Feb 2024, at 22:14, Scott(a)sympoiesis.com wrote: >>> >>> Hi all! I just ran into something surprising. This is with ASDF 3.2.1, >>> packaged with Quicklisp. I am using Named-Readtables. I had '*readtable*' >>> set to a nonstandard readtable, then did quickload of a system unrelated to >>> the one that defines and uses that readtable. The compilation failed; after >>> I did '(in-readtable :common-lisp)' and tried again, it succeeded. >>> >>> A quick glance at the ASDF source code shows that it binds '*readtable*' >>> to a standard readtable in some cases, such as to read a '.asd' file, but >>> not in 'uiop/lisp-build/compile-file*', nor in >>> 'asdf/lisp-action:perform-lisp-compilation'. Wouldn't it make sense to do >>> that? >>> >>> -- Scott >>> >>>

1 0

historical question
by cage 06 Feb '24

06 Feb '24

Hi! Some person (including me) was wondering when the ASDF project started; on the fediverse someone guessed that the 25th anniversary could be near. Is that true? Bye! C.

5 12

Announcing ASDF 3.3.7 Release
by Robert Goldman 29 Jan '24

29 Jan '24

Today we release ASDF 3.3.7, "Robbie Burns Night 2024 (belated)," the seventh bugfix release for the 3.3 release series. I had hoped that this would be the last bugfix release, but "the best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men Gang aft agley." We urge implementations that are currently bundling previous versions of ASDF to upgrade to 3.3.7 at their earliest convenience. This is particularly true for Allegro and SBCL. A primary purpose of the 3.3.7 was to give compatibility with Allegro 11.0. There is also a fix for multi-threaded vs. single-threaded FASLs that should be very useful to SBCL users. As maintainer, my primary role continues to be coordination and some limited quality control. Many contributors and bug-reporters have made this possible and the Common Lisp community owes them a vote of thanks. Their names are listed on the Changelog, appended below. The Changelog is in Debian format, for historical reasons: we used to release a Debian package, but have lost that capability (if you would like to volunteer to do this, please contact me directly or on the ASDF-devel mailing list). Hope springs eternal that the next release will be 3.4, that will introduce new functionality but, as its numbering suggests, will be backward compatible. Best, Robert cl-asdf (2:3.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=low * Fix bugs in UIOP:WITH-TEMPORARY-FILE, #142. * Fix bug in (SETF UIOP:GETENV). H/T to Michaël Le Barbier, #146. * Remember whether or not an SBCL build is single- or multi-threaded, since the two give incompatible FASLs. H/T to Philipp Marek, #143. * Remove unused UIOP:WITH-OPTIMIZATION-SETTINGS. This macro was never used, nor was its coding finished and debugged. H/T Yehouda Harpaz. #148. * Fix a number of issues with Allegro 11 compatibility. Many thanks to Duane Rettig and Kevin Layer. #152, #141 * Fix DEFPACKAGE code-walker for PACKAGE-INFERRED-SYSTEMs. Thanks to Alexander Fedorov. #147. * Thanks to Alexander Fedorov for assistance with the CI infrastructure. * Thanks to François-René Rideau for assistance in understanding past versions of ASDF and with miscellaneous repairs. -- Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.net> Sun Jan 28 11:06:39 CST 2024

2 1

Plan to release ASDF 3.3.7
by Robert Goldman 27 Jan '24

27 Jan '24

I am planning to release the current version of ASDF, 3.3.6.7, as 3.3.7, most likely tomorrow or Monday. This version has a number of miscellaneous bug-fixes, but most significantly has been fixed to be compatible with the recent release of Allegro Common Lisp version 11.0. By releasing an Allegro 11-compatible version, we enable Franz to bundle a modern version of ASDF with the implementation, which will transparently give more of the community access to improved, more reliable ASDF functionality. I have tried to pull in some miscellaneous MRs before this release. If anyone knows of an MR that looks ready to go, please let me know and I will try to slip it in before the release. Best, R

1 0

Request for assistance: GitLab actions
by Robert Goldman 27 Jan '24

27 Jan '24

I have created a new docker image for Allegro CL version 11.0 (express/free), and put it on DockerHub: https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/rpgoldman/allegro11express/general I have tried to add regression and upgrade tests using this Docker Image -- see [Regression test](https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/blame/allegro-resize-areas… and [Upgrade test](https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/blob/allegro-resize-areas/…. Unfortunately, these tests don't work! They print the right information at the head of [the job](): Regression test: [allegro, rpgoldman/allegro11express, modern] : But they pull the wrong docker image: ``` Using Docker executor with image containers.common-lisp.net/cl-docker-images/allegro:latest ... Authenticating with credentials from job payload (GitLab Registry) Pulling docker image containers.common-lisp.net/cl-docker-images/allegro:latest ... Using docker image sha256:d0fc75f61208fa39497f5ae2188d6d70d4b65ae513105dbdf80f85b41a45ffdc for containers.common-lisp.net/cl-docker-images/allegro:latest with digest containers.common-lisp.net/cl-docker-images/allegro@sha256:e16f3a55a2d82973… ... ``` Does anyone on the list understand GitLab pipelines well enough to tell me why my `image` variable binding in "Regression test" and "Upgrade test" doesn't clobber the value from the template? Or, even more oddly, why it seems to half-way clobber it, giving the right info print, but pulling the wrong image? Sorry to bother the list, but I'm at my wits end and the debugging tools and documentation are somewhere between horrible and non-existent. Thanks for any advice, R

4 4

Re: ASDF: could use some help with ECL issue
by Daniel Kochmański 10 Jan '24

10 Jan '24

Hey Robert, I've looked into this issue and it seems that it is a bug in ECL. Even on idempotent defpackage definitions it first removes use-list and then re-adds it, while the different part of the code enforces the lock. I've added the ticket to our tracker: https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/-/issues/730 Best regards, Daniel -- Daniel Kochmański ;; aka jackdaniel | Przemyśl, Poland TurtleWare - Daniel Kochmański | www.turtleware.eu "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi On Tuesday, January 9th, 2024 at 16:48, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.net> wrote: > In the regression test results for a bug fix to ASDF (https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/jobs/63801), I see this error which I don't understand at all: > > Cannot unuse package #<"COMMON-LISP" package> from locked package #<"PACKAGE-INFERRED-SYSTEM-TEST/SBCL-EXT-LOCK" package>. > > The line that seems to be causing this is the following (in a test system): > > (defpackage package-inferred-system-test/sbcl-ext-lock > (:use :cl) > #+(or sbcl ecl) (:lock t) > (:export #:implemented-by-other-package)) > > More discussion about this is in ASDF Merge Request 226: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/merge_requests/226 > > The underlying issue is to try to make sure that implementation specific defpackage extensions (like :lock) don't cause ASDF's defpackage groveler to fail when working with package-defined systems. > > Thanks for any advice!

2 1

Request for information: Implementation-specific DEFPACKAGE extensions
by Robert Goldman 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

@gefjon has proposed ASDF MR [!226](https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/merge_requests/226) that extends ASDF's package inferred system dependency groveler to handle SBCL's extension to the set of `defpackage` options, addressing [Issue #147](https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/issues/147). Before merging this, it would be nice to know of other implementations' extensions to `defpackage`. I'd be obliged if those in the know would post information about `defpackage` extensions their favored implementations have added, if any, or let us know if tfi leaves `defpackage` un-extended. That would make it quicker to get this fix merged and issued, and would help the community as a whole. Feel free to respond by email, or to post your answer in the comments to the merge request, whichever is most convenient. Thanks, R

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel