asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

1 participants
1378 discussions

[asdf-devel] has ":depends-on ((:version ...))" semantics changed?
by Anton Vodonosov 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Hello. Has the semantics of :depends-on with :version specified for the dependency changed recently? I am asking, because I observe problems in several libraries. For example, moptilities. moptilities.asd has :depends-on ((:version :closer-mop "0.55")) In Quicklisp 2013-11-11 closer-mop is updated, now its ASDF system has :version "1.0.0" Now moptilities fails to load on many lisps (clisp, ccl-1.8, ccl-1.8, ecl, sbcl-1.1.0.36). The error is MISSING-DEPENDENCY-OF-VERSION: Component :CLOSER-MOP does not match version 0.55, required by #<SYSTEM "moptilities"> But on sbcl-1.1.11 moptilities load OK. This is a relatively recent SBCL, so I assume it has newer ASDF than many other lisps. And probably that's why it it can load moptilities. Also interesting, that in the previous Quicklisp closer-mop version was "0.61". And moptilities, which depend on closer-mop "0.55" was loaded successfully by many lisps which now fail. Test results for moptilities for the current and previous Quiclisp may be found here: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/library/moptilities.html Moptilities is only on example, there are other libraries affected by this problem. So, my question is: how :depends-on ((:version ...)) should work, and is the change in the behavior intentional? Best regards, - Anton

5 13

[asdf-devel] Testing ASDF with cl-test-grid
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Dear Anton, > When we tested with cl-test-grid, > ABCL, CMUCL, CCL, CLISP, ECL, SBCL were tested on 2.31.8 > http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-21.html > > The latest cl-test-grid cycle was for ASDF 2.32.35, it was tested > on CCL, CLISP, ECL, SBCL on Linux. > http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-23.html > > So, as you see we ended up testing last fixes only on some lisps, > not all lisps. Probably that's because it was stabilizing period and > the fixes were for concrete bugs. > > Still, we didn't make a firm "rollback" point - an ASDF version where we > ensured we have no regressions on all lisps. For now I suggest to consider > 2.32.35 as more or less reliable previous comparison point, where > all regressions were proved to be not ASDF bugs, but bugs in libraries, > and were reported to the library maintainers. > > I hope in this ASDF release, we will test the released version > on maximum number of lisps, so that in future we will have reliable > comparison point. > Yes. This time, let's use 2.32.35 as our baseline, and if you can, test both ASDF 3.0.3 as the current stable, and 3.1.0.32 (current HEAD) as our release candidate for 3.1.1. I don't actually expect any change in cl-test-grid results between all these versions, except maybe that my own software (e.g. lisp-interface-library) might possibly fail on older versions of ASDF. >> But then, you'd have to check with both old and new Quicklisp. > > I am going to run tests of both previous stable ASDF version and the > current HEAD on the same Quicklisp - 2013-12-13. > Thanks a lot! >> I suppose that you should compare with whatever comes with the implementation. > > OK, we can do this too - we will compare result for the latest ASDF > with the results for the "main", unpatched quicklisp, which uses ASDF > coming with the implementation. > > It also would be nice to compare with some concrete previous stable > ASDF version, as described above, to be sure we cover full ASDF evolution > on all lisps. > Don't overdo it. I would do it with maybe 2.26 (default from Quicklisp), 2.32.35 (previous tested), 3.0.3 (latest stable) and 3.1.0.32 (release candidate), and that's already a lot. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It may be bad manners to talk with your mouth full, but it isn't too good either if you speak when your head is empty.

3 13

[asdf-devel] ASDF's MAKE-BUILD breaks ECL's DLL target
by Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

I have real trouble deciphering the new make-build code but I have come to the conclusion that the :DLL target has been eliminated. The current :DLL target claims to "Link together all the dynamic library used by this system into a single one." which is not what ECL's :DLL target was doing. ECL's :DLL/:SHARED-LIBRARY target did the same as :STATIC-LIBRARY, which is to link all FASL files into a single, linkable file, but in the shared library form. The elimination of this feature and the replacement with a possibly empty behavior (I see no opeartion associated to DLL at all), breaks ECL's users code and expectations, having had already some bug reports for that. The worse thing is that I no longer seem to understand ASDF's internal's logic well enough to provide any reliable kind of fix, but what I attached seems to do the job just as well. In this patch, since the DLL operation does nothing on any other platform, I took the liberty to condition it on ECL/MKCL Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://quinfog.iff.csic.es

2 5

[asdf-devel] Tests completed
by Robert P. Goldman 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Over the weekend ran the full up tests, with upgrade as well as regression tests, on Mac OSX Lion with the following lispen: ccl clisp sbcl cmucl lispworks allegro_64 allegromodern_64 allegro8_64 allegromodern8_64 allegro_64_s allegromodern_64_s allegro8_64_s allegromodern8_64_s ecl abcl All tests completed successfully. I would like to do the following: 1. Add warnings as appropriate wrt changes in OPERATION hierarchy for code that extends OPERATION classes. 2. Add warnings for people using ABCL or ECL + bundle-op on Mac OS. ...and then do a release. Cheers, r

4 21

[asdf-devel] clisp, logical pathnames, and ASDF
by Robert P. Goldman 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

I have been grappling with my inability to upgrade clisp, and find myself confused by the following events in my transcript: [17]> (uiop/pathname:ensure-pathname "home:lisp;asdf;") #P"home:lisp;asdf;" [18]> (probe-file (merge-pathnames (uiop/pathname:ensure-pathname "home:lisp;asdf;") "asdf.asd")) NIL [19]> (translate-logical-pathname "home:lisp;asdf;asdf.asd") #P"/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.asd" [20]> (probe-file (translate-logical-pathname "home:lisp;asdf;asdf.asd")) #P"/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.asd" [21]> (probe-file (merge-pathnames (translate-logical-pathname "home:lisp;asdf;") "asdf.asd")) #P"/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.asd" Am I for some reasonnot to expect that the standard pathname functions (e.g., merge-pathnames) will work with logical pathnames? The online clisp manual page discussing LOGICAL PATHNAMES says only: "No notes." http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/log-path.html But as I understand the CLHS on MERGE-PATHNAMES, with reference to the definition of "pathname designator", the above behavior seems to be non-conforming. I am not at all experienced with clisp, and find myself on strange and shaky ground here. thanks, r

3 7

[asdf-devel] Ordering of system :depends-on elements
by Zach Beane 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

A few projects in quicklisp work something like this: ;;; foo.asd (defsystem foo ...) (defsystem foo-extra ...) ;;; bar.asd (defsystem bar :depends-on (:foo-extra :foo)) With asdf 2, (asdf:load-system "bar") seems to work fine, I guess because asdf 2 does the equivalent of find-system on the elements from right-to-left. With asdf 3, it doesn't seem to work fine, I guess because asdf 3 does the equivalent of find-system on the elements from left-to-right. Are those guesses correct? What's the best way to have a system definition that works equally well in asdf2 and asdf3 in this kind of situation? Zach

7 15

[asdf-devel] is there a built in way to prevent ASDF from trying to upgrade itself?
by Gary King 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

thanks, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

1 0

[asdf-devel] Test status for ASDF
by Robert P. Goldman 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Running on 64-bit Mac: lispworks fails test-module-pathnames (sometimes) clisp all pass sbcl all pass ecl test-bundle fails. I think this is an ECL bug, or a bug in the MacPorts packaging. cmucl all pass abcl test-bundle fails. This is a different problem from the ECL bug. It's https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1207073 On 64-bit Linux: ccl sbcl cmucl allegro allegromodern lispworks all pass. But I have seen test-module-pathnames fail here on lispworks -- there seems to be an odd interaction between the test and make that is causing this to go wrong. Haven't had time to track down this intermittent failure.

2 1

[asdf-devel] defsystem :version (:read-file-line ...) fails because :at key isn't recognized
by Vsevolod Dyomkin 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Hi, Basically, the problem is described in the message header. Whereas :read-file-form option is used by ASDF itself, :read-file-line isn't used and wasn't tested. Attached is a patch with relevant test cases and fixes. I would also suggest refactoring the code, because the code paths for :read-file-form and :read-file-line are almost identical, but are implemented in separate functions. Best regards, Vsevolod Dyomkin +38-096-111-41-56 skype, twitter: vseloved

4 5

[asdf-devel] quick-build support for ASDF
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

I implemented support for quick-build in ASDF. Please review before it gets merged into the master branch. https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1230368 http://common-lisp.net/gitweb?p=projects/asdf/asdf.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/he… Note that until an ASDF recent enough to include this support is widely available, you may have to use asdf-package-system, which is basically the same thing packaged as an add-on: git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf-package-system.git http://common-lisp.net/gitweb?p=projects/asdf/asdf-package-system.git For backward compatibility with older versions of ASDF, I recommend the following: (defsystem top-of-my-quick-build-style-hierarchy :class package-system :defsystem-depends-on #.(unless (find-class 'package-system nil) '(:asdf-package-system))) —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It's better to know nothing that to know what ain't so. — Josh Billings

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel