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

Re: How would you feel...
by Robert P. Goldman 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Andreas Davour wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Faré wrote: > > [snip] >>> My SBCL is at 3.1.3. I think 3.1.4 is solid enough that it should be >>> updated there. >>> >> I've bugged SBCL hackers many time since last october, to no avail. > > But remember hwo it looks like from the outside, though. > > You are changing the third number, which will look like a patch to a > minor revision. They probably wont bother with updating (if it's any > amount of work) unless they see 3.2 or 4.0 is my guess. That's how I > would think. Actually, if I was them, I wouldn't bother updating until I saw 3.2.1! ;-) But seriously, waiting until the first bugfixes show up doesn't work well unless *somebody* runs the initial release and tests it in actual day-to-day use. It would be nice to figure out a way that ASDF could work nicely with the implementations so that implementors have an easy option to use the latest ASDF patch version day-to-day and see how well it plays with the latest version of the CL implementation. Cheers, r

2 2

Metadata check [WAS Re: How would you feel...]
by Robert P. Goldman 29 May '15

29 May '15

Faré wrote: >> OTOH, it's probably A Bad Thing if you depend on a system for something >> you are doing, and don't know what license it uses. >> > Well, we haven't codified any format for :license. I suppose we could adopt > the nomenclature used by Debian. Except what in Lisp circles goes by > the name "MIT" > (as notably used by ASDF itself) in Debian-speak is called "Expat". > Also, we don't have a story for multi-licensed code either. > For instance, I have code under LLGPL or bugroff, or BSD or bugroff. I didn't mean that we needed a codified format. I just meant that if you are using a system, and the humans involved don't know if your usage is legal (e.g., are you using pure GPL in a commercial application? are you delivering source for libraries when you deliver your code? etc.), that's a Bad Thing. Given that :LICENSE is currently arbitrary string valued, we can just make a string that indicates multiple possible licenses. We could certainly add some standard values (keywords?) for common licenses, and allow people to specify a list of such values (and an optional string), but I'm not sure what we would gain by this. I don't yet see a use case for machine-introspection on the :license, but I'm open to suggestions. > >> But that's why I created a special class of CONDITION for this case -- >> so you can muffle it if you don't care. It would be nice if there was >> some way to detect the distinction between internal systems (fix them!) >> and external systems (muffle). >> > At ITA, we started with muffling the external systems, but quickly > enough decided to fix them instead; code quality matters for libraries > we depend on, too. But we did have a list of style-warnings to muffle > and some of them were based on dependencies indeed. For now a programmer could match the name of the system in my MISSING-METADATA condition, and use that to make his or her decision about muffling. > >> I'll push my topic branch today. It needs a test script, and I'd like >> to make it skip signaling on "slashy" subordinate systems, but I'd love >> comments in the meantime. >> I pushed this as the QL-metadata-warning topic branch. Best, r

2 1

Re: Metadata check [WAS Re: How would you feel...]
by Robert P. Goldman 28 May '15

28 May '15

Erik Huelsmann wrote: > Hi, > > In various occasions I have seen that you plan to make the metadata > arbitrary string or even general values. While I think that's okay, to > provide lists of suggested values so that use of the values gets easier > and if most people use the suggested values, the value system could end > up centralized around those values. In my opinion, that would add value, > especially for machine interpretation. Note that this isn't something that I have planned. It is something that is the de facto current standard. To date, all the metadata are given simply as strings, and they aren't of use for other than human inspection. If someone would suggest a list of keywords for the licenses, we could certainly incorporate that in some fashion. But it would complicate any introspection code. Presumably that code would be taking the metadata and formatting it for the user. So it would now have to consider the possibility of keywords, which should be translated, and probably lists of keywords (per Fare's email), as well as strings. That would complicate the work of anyone trying to make use of the code. Now, if there was something where someone might want to say: (find :gnu-gpl (mapcar #'asdf:component-license my-systems)) [actually, that wouldn't work because of the possibility component-license is list valued] and do something with the results, then it might be worth making such an effort. But I haven't seen any "pull" for such a feature in ASDF. cheers, r > > Regards > > Erik > > On May 27, 2015 8:54 PM, "Robert P. Goldman" <rpgoldman(a)sift.net > <mailto:rpgoldman@sift.net>> wrote: > > Faré wrote: > >> OTOH, it's probably A Bad Thing if you depend on a system for > something > >> you are doing, and don't know what license it uses. > >> > > Well, we haven't codified any format for :license. I suppose we > could adopt > > the nomenclature used by Debian. Except what in Lisp circles goes by > > the name "MIT" > > (as notably used by ASDF itself) in Debian-speak is called "Expat". > > Also, we don't have a story for multi-licensed code either. > > For instance, I have code under LLGPL or bugroff, or BSD or bugroff. > > I didn't mean that we needed a codified format. I just meant that if > you are using a system, and the humans involved don't know if your usage > is legal (e.g., are you using pure GPL in a commercial application? are > you delivering source for libraries when you deliver your code? etc.), > that's a Bad Thing. > > Given that :LICENSE is currently arbitrary string valued, we can just > make a string that indicates multiple possible licenses. > > We could certainly add some standard values (keywords?) for common > licenses, and allow people to specify a list of such values (and an > optional string), but I'm not sure what we would gain by this. > > I don't yet see a use case for machine-introspection on the :license, > but I'm open to suggestions. > > > > >> But that's why I created a special class of CONDITION for this > case -- > >> so you can muffle it if you don't care. It would be nice if > there was > >> some way to detect the distinction between internal systems (fix > them!) > >> and external systems (muffle). > >> > > At ITA, we started with muffling the external systems, but quickly > > enough decided to fix them instead; code quality matters for libraries > > we depend on, too. But we did have a list of style-warnings to muffle > > and some of them were based on dependencies indeed. > > For now a programmer could match the name of the system in my > MISSING-METADATA condition, and use that to make his or her decision > about muffling. > > > >> I'll push my topic branch today. It needs a test script, and I'd > like > >> to make it skip signaling on "slashy" subordinate systems, but > I'd love > >> comments in the meantime. > >> > > I pushed this as the QL-metadata-warning topic branch. > > Best, > r >

2 1

Should we abandon support for IMAGE ops on Lispworks?
by Robert P. Goldman 27 May '15

27 May '15

I'm starting to be inclined to suggest we abandon support for this kind of operation on Lispworks. Lispworks does not provide a portable means to invoke from the command-line, indeed invocation from the command line is *IMPOSSIBLE* unless you pay extra for a Professional license. Also, image-dumping is only possible if you have a Professional license. What's even The Right Thing here? Should we be checking to see if image creation is possible? And how do we capture the fact that some of our stuff requires that the user create a LW image that can be invoked from the command line w/o starting up the IDE? I really wish they would ship with a simple command-line executable... Cheers, r

2 1

How would you feel...
by Robert P. Goldman 27 May '15

27 May '15

About holding the release briefly while I negotiate with Xach about metadata? Xach is starting to make QL complain about systems missing AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and LICENSE. I'm pushing for VERSION, as well. I was thinking of adding a new class of STYLE-WARNING for systems that are missing that metadata. Given that it's hard to get ASDF versions into implementations, I'm considering holding on this briefly. I'll put in a topic branch for this. cheers, r

2 6

Getting failure on LW 6 and 7 on Mac and Linux on test-run-program
by Robert P. Goldman 27 May '15

27 May '15

Here's the error: TEST ABORTED: Undefined function LISP-INVOCATION/IMPLEMENTATIONS::INVOKE-LISP-VIA-SCRIPT called with arguments (:CROSS-COMPILE NIL :LOAD "/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/test/make-hello-world.lisp" :EVAL "(asdf-test::make-hello-image)" :RUN-PROGRAM-ARGS (:INPUT NIL :IGNORE-ERROR-STATUS T :OUTPUT (#<Synonym stream to HARLEQUIN-COMMON-LISP:*BACKGROUND-OUTPUT*> :LINEWISE T :PREFIX "stdout: ") :ERROR-OUTPUT (#<Synonym stream to HARLEQUIN-COMMON-LISP:*BACKGROUND-OUTPUT*> :LINEWISE T :PREFIX "stderr: "))). Investigating, but wanted to pass this on for now. Cheers, r

2 2

Purpose of components of type :static-file?
by Dave Cooper 26 May '15

26 May '15

Hi, What is the intended purpose of the :static-files component-type in ASDF? I see a couple examples of their use in the ASDF manual, but didn't see an explanation or real example of how to use them downstream from including them in the defsystem form in the .asd file. Presumably they can be used for README, license, example files, and other resources which go with a system but are not Lisp source files to be compiled and loaded with the system. If so, then what are the supported/expected operations with static-files? For example, is there a way to query a system for files of type :static-file, so that you can do something with them (e.g. copy them to a distribution directory)? Best Regards, Dave P.S. my apologies if this has been discussed in this list before -- My Best, Dave Cooper, Genworks Support david.cooper(a)genworks.com, dave.genworks.com(skype) +1 248-330-2979

3 2

Declaring code obsolete
by Faré 23 May '15

23 May '15

Dear lispers, I'm looking for hackers to review my branch obsolete-function-warnings: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/tree/obsolete-function-warnings In it, I add support to UIOP for issuing conditions for obsolete functions, and use it for UIOP and ASDF deprecated functions. They can be style-warning, warning, continuable error or error, if possible at compile-time via a compiler-macro, or at first use at runtime. Last option is plain error at compile-time for having failed to delete the functions when promised. There is also a cool but somewhat dangerous optional feature that can automatically bumps the status of an obsolete function at every release — you better not use it lightly. Finally, this was the opportunity to realize that there are plenty of offenders in Quicklisp that use long obsolete APIs of ASDF and need be updated. Yikes. QUESTIONS: * Does it make sense to go from :style-warning to :warning to :error to :delete ? * Does it make sense for :error to be a continuable error, or should I introduce an extra step for :cerror, then an :error that isn't continuable? * Robert is in charge of the release schedule, so he should decide what automatic bumping to use, if any. I suppose he may want style-warning now while we're in 3.1, then warning at 3.2, then error at 3.3, then function deleted in 3.4; except for some recently deprecated functions that should only start issuing style-warning in 3.2, and for some backward compatibility package munging that I hope can go away in 3.3. * At some point soon, someone must contact all those people using obsolete functions and classes, and chide them or offer patches. * Now is a good time to upgrade, since all maintained implementations at long last provide asdf3 (May 2013, so a 2 year delay from release to ubiquity; let's hope 3.1 will be ubiquitous next year). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "To speak algebraically, Mr. M. is execrable, but Mr. G. is (x+1)ecrable." — Edgar Alan Poe

1 0

New version of ASDF pushed
by Robert P. Goldman 19 May '15

19 May '15

I have just pushed 3.1.4.5, which contains fixes to UIOP's configuration file finding/XDG functions needed to fix launchpad bug 1437480. Testing would be very much appreciated, especially by those using the configuration file finding functions.

2 10

Patch to UIOP/LISP-BUILD:GET-OPTIMIZATION-SETTINGS for SBCL
by Douglas Katzman 18 May '15

18 May '15

Hi ASDF developers, I'm changing SB-C::*POLICY* from a list to a struct. (This yields us a nice compile-file speedup.) Instead of accessing the global policy with (CDR (ASSOC ...)) it should be accessed with (SB-C::POLICY-QUALITY) as per the attached diff. This function has been present since 2000-12-29 and the interface is unchanged, so a new ASDF can work just fine with an older SBCL. The reverse is not possible. I'll patch the ASDF that ships with SBCL. Doug

2 2