asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

5 participants
1375 discussions

Start a nNew thread

relocate/locate fasl files
by Greg Bennett 17 Jul '17

17 Jul '17

2 1

Updated read-depends branch
by Robert Goldman 10 Jul '17

10 Jul '17

Incorporated some of Fare's suggestions and also improved the testing.

1 0

the new read-depends branch is pushed
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

This is a solution that seems to work well enough to be reviewed for merging.

2 1

Problem with adding input files...
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

Recording the included files (from read-file-form and read-file-line) has so far failed to solve the problem of ASDF missing updates to the included files. I could use a little advice here. Running the test I have pushed, I tried tracing asdf/action:action-up-to-date-p. It is not called during the second invocation of (asdf:load-system "test-include") So at the moment I do not see how the flow of control works to decide whether or not it is necessary to redo the DEFINE-OP. And maybe DEFINE-OP isn't the operation that should be re-triggered by changes to the system definition file or included files? Is the right place for these new dependencies on included files DEFINE-OP or PREPARE-OP? thanks, r

2 7

Possible incompleteness in INPUT-FILES for DEFINE-OP
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

I think I may have stumbled on an incompleteness in this method. Here's the test case: 1. Define a system. S1, with a version loaded from a version file; 2. Load S1 into session. 3. Hack hack hack. 4. Bump S1's version number in the version.lisp-expr file 5. Load S2 that depends on new version of S1. As far as I can tell, ASDF is simply checking the .asd file, not S1-version.lisp-expr, to see if it's stale. So my load in step 5 is failing. This is, I believe, because S1-version.lisp-expr is not in the set of INPUT-FILES for S1's DEFINE-OP. It's a little unsettling to change this on the fly, but I think the right thing is probably to push the version.lisp-expr file onto a set of ancillary dependencies when it's read. If this sounds right, I'll stick this in as a ticket, and try to find where we could inject a fix. Best, r

3 8

Random ASDF component question
by Robert Goldman 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Sorry to bother you, but why is it that the BUILD-OPERATION is attached to COMPONENT instead of SYSTEM?

2 1

Re: Testing Quicklisp with ASDF
by Anton Vodonosov 26 May '17

26 May '17

1 0

Testing Quicklisp with ASDF
by Faré 24 May '17

24 May '17

Dear Anton, now that a new Quicklisp was released, can you run a set of cl-test-grid against ASDF 3.1.7, 3.2.1 and the candidate 3.3.0 (in the "plan" branch)? If you can prioritize, quick results for all these versions of ASDF on a recent SBCL are more interesting than all results on all platforms. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org An extreme optimist is a man who believes that humanity will probably survive even if it doesn't take his advice. — John McCarthy

2 1

LOGICAL-PATHNAMES output locations
by Mark Evenson 22 May '17

22 May '17

In spite of Faré's resistance to supporting LOGICAL-PATHNAMEs in ASDF, I would ask for help in using the current capabilities documented for ASDF-3.2. To wit, I would like to implement my own OUTPUT-TRANSLATIONS for LOGICAL-PATHNAMES [as is allowed (but discouraged)][1]. [1]: https://www.common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf.html#Using-logical-pathnames I tried to define a (massively inefficient) :BEFORE COMPILE-OP which replaces all LOGICAL-PATHNAME instances with a call to CL:TRUENAME but that doesn't seem to work: ``` (defsystem abcl/build :version "2.0.0" :description "Build ABCL from a Lisp. Downloads necessary build-time tools to local cache." :in-order-to ((test-op (test-op abcl/build/t))) :perform (compile-op :before (op c) (when (typep c 'source-file) (with-slots (absolute-pathname) c (when (typep absolute-pathname 'logical-pathname) (setf absolute-pathname (truename absolute-pathname)))))) :components ((:module package :pathname #p"SYS:build;" :components ((:file "package"))) ``` What is the right well to specify my own OUTPUT-TRANSLATIONS mechanism? The disfavor of LOGICAL-PATHANME references in DEFSYSTEM form is fully understandable from the observation that there is no conforming way to ensure that the "right" translations are in place. But, I have come up with a use case in abcl where LOGICAL-PATHNAMEs would be very useful, and since it is "my" implementation, I can guarantee that appropiate translations are in place at runtime. My use case involves locating source code referenced by ASDF in different locations depending on whether the source is being actively developed, and is on a writable filesystem, or whether the source is being loaded from a read-only JVM source, i.e. a "jar" archive. Using LOGICAL-PATHNAMEs within `abcl.asd` allows me to configure the runtime behavior quite nicely via suitable DSL parameter to the ASDF:INITIALIALIZE-SOURCE-REGISTRY. Running the [currently-in-asdf jar translation code on the SOURCE-FILE][2] is all I need to do here to get a valid output location for COMPILE-OP. [2]: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/master/output-translations.li… -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now."

2 1

Plans for ASDF 3.3
by Faré 16 May '17

16 May '17

Dear Robert, dear Lispers, I'd like to know what are the release plans will be for 3.3. My branch for proper phase separation is basically ready to be merged, but I'd like to see how compatible it is with next month's Quicklisp before I can recommend releasing it upon the masses. Note that the branch is called "plan" because it started as a refactoring how asdf builds its plan, but the changes run deeper than that — 970 lines were added or modified all over, not counting those moved around — that's double the number of lines of the original ASDF. Additional questions: should the syntax-control branch be worked on for 3.3.0? 3.2.2? 3.3.1? 3.4.0? It's a low-hanging fruit to making ASDF a more robust build tool that supports working with non-trivial syntax extension. PS: Are any (preferrably younger) lispers interested in becoming proficient at ASDF maintenance? There are plenty of TODO items of all sizes and all difficulties that could use some love. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "I'm going to live forever, or die trying!" — Spider Robinson

6 22

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel