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

Re: Suggestions for procedure going forward
by Robert Goldman 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -11:33 PM, Steven Núñez wrote: > With git you can, and usually do, have many branches, including personal ones. The pull request will be against a specific branch. I only read this message of the thread, so hope I'm answering the right question. Github has some good tutorials. Well the question isn't really about having many branches. The question is what happens when you have stable and development branches, and you want to "jump" the stable branch to mark retiring an old stable version and starting a new one? Doesn't that involve a nasty merge or rebase? I can do some research, but I was hoping someone knew the answer.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: asdf-devel [mailto:asdf-devel-bounces@common-lisp.net] On Behalf Of Robert Goldman > Sent: 18 November, 2015 21:17 > To: asdf-devel(a)common-lisp.net > Subject: Re: Suggestions for procedure going forward > > On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -8:35 PM, Faré wrote: >> Yeah, there's an awkward merge or rebase happening when "stable" jumps >> from 3.1 to 3.2, whereas no such jump happens if old branches have >> numbered names and are forked off a master that keeps going forward. >> > > Surely git must have a solution to this problem? There must be a ton of projects that need to have a "stable" and a "development" branch. So this must arise all over the place.... > > Anyone know? >

4 4

Suggestions for procedure going forward
by Robert Goldman 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

We have had a number of ASDF 3 releases that have mostly been aimed at bug-fixing (although some new features have crept in). I'd like to declare ASDF 3 feature complete and done, but I don't want to close the door to future bug fix releases as needed, nor do I want to shove incomplete new features out in order to get bug fixes out. So I'd like to split ASDF development into stable and testing or something like that. Does anyone have experience doing that? If so, please post suggestions for process to ASDF-devel. Thanks! r

4 9

Finding depended-upon systems
by Robert Goldman 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

This seems like it might be a good FAQ, and we had some correspondence about a related query earlier. (sort (mapcar #'asdf:component-name (mapcar #'cdr (remove-if-not #'(lambda (x) (and (typep (cdr x) 'asdf/system:system) (typep (car x) 'asdf:load-op))) (asdf::traverse (make-instance 'asdf::load-op) (asdf:find-system "hunchentoot") :force :all)))) #'string-lessp) This requires knowing a bit about the internals of ASDF and relies on an obsoleted function (TRAVERSE). Maybe we should wrap this up and provide it as part of an ASDF query API? Cheers, r P.S. Sorry about the horrible word-wrapping...

5 10

a FIND-SYSTEM inconsistency which may be a bug
by Attila Lendvai 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

see here: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/master/find-system.lisp#L187 CLEANUP-SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS attempts to remove SYSDEF-PRELOADED-SYSTEM-SEARCH from the hooks, but it is never added. and right under it, SEARCH-FOR-SYSTEM-DEFINITION also assumes that it's supposed to be called explicitly after the hooks. the reason it's relevant is that this way it's not possible to add a hook as a very last hook to be called (e.g. for quicklisp integration to initiate downloading if a system cannot be found anywhere). -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine (1737–1809)

1 1

make-pathname* and Allegro
by Kevin Layer 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

We were debugging some problems with an internal system and happened to run across this: (defun make-pathname* (&rest keys &key (directory nil) host (device () #+allegro devicep) name type version defaults #+scl &allow-other-keys) "Takes arguments like CL:MAKE-PATHNAME in the CLHS, and tries hard to make a pathname that will actually behave as documented, despite the peculiarities of each implementation" ;; TODO: reimplement defaulting for MCL, whereby an explicit NIL should override the defaults. (declare (ignorable host device directory name type version defaults)) (apply 'make-pathname (append #+allegro (when (and devicep (null device)) `(:device :unspecific)) keys))) which is kind of curious, adding :device :unspecific only for Allegro. Tracking it down to see if there were comments in the commit that added the change yielded nothing: commit 1e4bafdbd4200d3a19722699d6a332316b082b2b Author: Francois-Rene Rideau <tunes(a)google.com> Date: Wed Feb 6 04:23:13 2013 +0100 2.28.1: various upgrade issues 1- To make life easier on Xach, stop requiring asdf.lisp to be loaded as source before it's compiled. Instead, wrap each and every single form in an eval-when, most of the time via the with-upgradability macro that also transforms defun into defun* and defgeneric into defgeneric*. Causes massive reindentation :-( 2- Have a proper :version for fallback systems. Will make systems that check the version happier. 3- protect a condition with #+sb-eval. Fixes lp#1116408. 4- Protect warnings-file methods with dynamic when *warnings-file-type* rather than static #+. Does anyone know why this change was made and what problem it fixed? Thanks. Kevin

2 4

register-immutable-system -> (setf system-mutable-p)
by Attila Lendvai 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

the export entry in the package was not renamed, it still exports REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “You can get love only from a free agent whose uniqueness is respected by you, whose freedom is respected by you. It is out of the freedom of the other that this moment of love has happened. Don’t destroy it by trying to possess, by trying to hold, by creating a legal bondage, a marriage. Let the other be free, and remain free yourself. Don’t let anybody else possess you either. To possess or to be possessed, both are ugly. If you are possessed you lose your very soul.” — Osho (1931–1990), 'From Darkness to Light' (1985)

1 1

two ASDF bugs holding back a slick quicklisp experience with projectured
by Attila Lendvai 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

dear ASDF maintainer(s), let me draw your attention to two bugs that hold back a simple (ql:quickload :projectured.sdl.test) to work out of the box: https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1276846 https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1515372 (the second one is actually not a showstopper once the first one is fixed) could you please update the issues with whatever you can? e.g. it would be nice to know an ETA because if it'll take long then i may look into getting up to speed with ASDF development and fixing them myself. thanks for all your efforts, -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” — Isaac Asimov (1920–1992)

2 1

How do I query what files need to be recompiled?
by Ahmon Dancy 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

http://www.cliki.net/asdf has this FAQ: Q: How do I query what files need to be recompiled? A: With ASDF 3, you can (asdf:required-components system :force nil :force-not nil :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file :keep-operation 'asdf:compile-op) However, with ASDF 3.1.6, I find that this does not work as advertised: ;;; system1.asd (asdf:defsystem :system1 :serial t :default-component-class asdf:cl-source-file.cl :components ((:file "one") (:file "two") (:file "three"))) cl-user(8): (asdf:compile-system :system1) t cl-user(9): (asdf:required-components :system1 :force nil :force-not nil :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file :keep-operation 'asdf:compile-op) (#<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "one"> #<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "two"> #<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "three">) Is there a new way to achieve the same goal?

3 2

Re: How do I query what files need to be recompiled?
by Robert Goldman 11 Nov '15

11 Nov '15

On 11/11/15 Nov 11 -3:03 PM, Andreas Davour wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Robert Goldman wrote: > >> BTW, I have whacked the content of that cliki page. We don't have the >> resources to maintain the cliki pages, the cl.net homepage, and the >> manual. > > I just realized I had assumed I knew what was the SOA, but maybe I > should ask? My apologies, but I have no idea what SOA means in this context. I suspect it's not "Service Oriented Architecture."

1 0

How do I query what files need to be recompiled?
by Ahmon Dancy 11 Nov '15

11 Nov '15

http://www.cliki.net/asdf has this FAQ: Q: How do I query what files need to be recompiled? A: With ASDF 3, you can (asdf:required-components system :force nil :force-not nil :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file :keep-operation 'asdf:compile-op) However, with ASDF 3.1.6, I find that this does not work as advertised: ;;; system1.asd (asdf:defsystem :system1 :serial t :default-component-class asdf:cl-source-file.cl :components ((:file "one") (:file "two") (:file "three"))) cl-user(8): (asdf:compile-system :system1) t cl-user(9): (asdf:required-components :system1 :force nil :force-not nil :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file :keep-operation 'asdf:compile-op) (#<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "one"> #<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "two"> #<asdf/lisp-action:cl-source-file.cl "system1" "three">) Is there a new way to achieve the same goal?

1 0