asdf-devel

asdf-devel@common-lisp.net

1 participants
1378 discussions

Quick note
by Robert Goldman 18 Jan '22

18 Jan '22

I have a crush of things going on in the next week, so -- although I regret it, because there are a number of very interesting issues to see to right now! -- I will be largely unresponsive for up to a week. Sorry about that, but it's unavoidable. Best, R

1 0

Earlier posting
by Robert Goldman 10 Jan '22

10 Jan '22

I have received some nice emails, and I appreciate them very much. However, in other fora there have been discussions about ASDF and Flexi-streams. That may be interesting, but it misses the key point -- or perhaps it reinforces the key point: this community seems to think it's normal for someone to say that they want to pressure another volunteer maintainer into changing a decision they don't like by breaking software, and trying to raise anger in the community. Surely a little attention to today's news shows that rage-stoking is not a means to building a healthy community of any sort. I understand that confronting this issue is more difficult than talking about whether or not ASDF should be issuing a warning. But that's not the question that is at hand. I will move to silence on this certainly at least for the rest of the day. Best to all

1 0

Considering resignation as maintainer
by Robert Goldman 09 Jan '22

09 Jan '22

I have discovered that Stas Bokuraev is continuing to refuse to update Edi packages to modern ASDF system-naming. This would not be bad in and of itself, because these are open source systems, and they can be forked. What *is* bad is that he has publicly stated that he is doing this hoping that the resulting warnings will break people's systems and thus cause them to get angry and complain to me about ASDF checking system names. What is even worse is that the CL community tacitly accepts this as normal behavior. I would like to see the CL open source community pause and consider what constitutes a healthy community. I don't believe that someone trying to break things in order to pressure a volunteer maintainer of infrastructure is something that a healthy community should accept. If the community prefers a more rough-and-tumble approach, I can accept that, but if so it's time for the community to find an ASDF maintainer who is more in harmony with the values it (at least implicitly) espouses.

1 0

Need to call asdf:load-system (or equivalent) from asdf:test-system
by Albus Matt Piroglu 29 Dec '21

29 Dec '21

Note I have opened an issue on gitlab, but I know it's an overkill to open issues for questions. I couldn't find an appropriate channel until I found this mailing list. I'll close the issue, and here is my question for your consideration: Hi, I'm trying to test a functionality that depends on loading systems. Thusly I ended up writing some tests that need to load a "test-system" during the tests, and I clear the system afterwards. A simplified code for the test in question is: (test check-the-system-is-loaded-as-expected () (asdf:load-system "my-test-system-under-test-folder") (is --check that the system loaded as expected--) (asdf:clear-system "my-test-system-under-test-folder") (delete-package "PACKAGE-FROM-TEST-SYSTEM")) and, to clarify, another test relies on the same system not being loaded, so I don't think a dependency would solve the issue, it is rather a dynamic decision to load or not. Now, I know that this feature is deprecated and may not work. What I'm wondering if there's a safer way to achieve this. Wouldn't some tests for asdf itself need loading some test systems for example? (hmm it actually might be a good idea to go check them now). OK, for example there's a hello-world-example.asd in test, which looks similar to my my-test-system-under-test-folder. So, instead of asdf:load-system in the above test code, should I be using a lower-level operation call? Thanks! Albus

3 4

:initform vs. :default-initargs
by Attila Lendvai 22 Dec '21

22 Dec '21

dear list, i wanted to set the default-component-class of our own system subclass using :default-initargs, but it's ignored because the slot has a :initform (as opposed to setting the default value using a :default-initargs entry). in the current ASDF setup, i need to override the slot (or the accessor method), which involves messing with internal symbols. if ASDF used :default-initargs then i could just override that using a :default-initargs entry on my own subclass (IIUC). https://lisptips.com/post/11728375873/initform-and-default-initargs i'm sending it for your consideration, it's not a pressing issue on my side. - attila PGP: 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39

4 5

Re: ASDF tools/release.lisp and PGP keys
by Robert Goldman 22 Dec '21

22 Dec '21

Thanks for the note! I'm not sure what to do about this, since I don't use the "asdf/tools" myself. I never figured out how to debug the lisp scripts there, so I have stuck to the old code that is based on bash and make. That looks like code that is probably related to the creation of Debian packages for ASDF. No one has been doing that for years. I should probably prune the code for doing that.... Best, R On 22 Dec 2021, at 10:54, Attila Lendvai wrote: > Robert, > > i have this local diff: > > - (error "Please export variable DEBSIGN_KEYID to be the 8-hex hash of > your GnuPG secret key"))) > + (error "Please export variable DEBSIGN_KEYID to be the 16+ digit > hexadecimal hash of your GnuPG secret key"))) > > there's an ongoing attack against PGP keys where a white hat hacker is > brute-forcing the published keys to generate keys that have the same > hash/fingerprint, or at least the last 8 digits. > > luckily they also publish a revocation certificate for these fake > keys, but i recommend using longer than 8 digit fingerprints when > identifying PGP keys. > > just a head's up, probably not very urgent/relevant. > > - attila > PGP: 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39

1 0

Version specifiers and constraints
by Eric Timmons 23 Nov '21

23 Nov '21

Attached is a patch to ASDF's documentation that describes what I plan to implement to allow ASDF to have both customizable version specifiers and more expressive version constraints. I would appreciate concrete feedback on this proposal. Additionally, this diff exists on MR !169 if you would prefer to give feedback that way. If you do, please mostly ignore the non-documentation changes. The other changes were made quite a while ago and don't take into account some of the recent feedback I've received. Some notes: To support extensible version specifiers, I started with Didier's approach (first discussed at <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/2015-June/004698.html>, I believe). However, that approach required a non-standard system class if you wanted to extend the version specifier. That seemed rather heavy-handed, so I moved to an approach where you can specify a :version-class in your defsystem. This should also make it composable with custom classes. However, if you foresee issues with that, we can change it back. One of the version classes provided by UIOP is called semantic-version. It implements only the semver grammar and ordering relationships. It does not implement any sort of constraint on major versions matching or the like (note that such a thing is not even required by the semver spec!). However, I realize that "semantic version" can be a loaded term, so I'm happy to discuss changing the name of the class if anyone has a workable idea. The other version class is called default-version. Currently it's a subclass of semantic-version. However, given Robert's recent suggestion to limit the pre-release segment to alpha/beta/rc and an optional integer, that could be changed. In fact, we could implement Didier's preferred grammar as well, where X.Y.ZaW would be equivalent to X.Y.Z-alpha.W and the same with b/beta and rc/rc. The attractive thing about that is it means ASDF's defaults would likely cover the vast majority of version grammars developers would want to use. I'm particularly interested in feedback on the :compatible-versions argument to defsystem. I don't think any other build tool I have experience with provides such a thing. However, it seems like an elegant way to address the common complaint that more expressive version constraints encourage a system consumer to block versions of their dependencies that haven't even been released yet. -Eric

1 0

Next steps
by Robert Goldman 19 Nov '21

19 Nov '21

The next item to merge is Alberto's !192. This is new functionality, rather than a bug fix, so I am considering adding a `main` branch, retiring `master`, and moving most activity there, with an eye to getting the first 3.4 release underway. That would permit me to start merging a number of things that add new capabilities that don't seem like a patch version. Alternatively, we could just keep `master`, but it seems like that is becoming old standard practice, so changing to `main` would comply with the new de facto standard established by GitHub. Then, if we want to back patch, we can create a `stable` branch and cherry-pick onto that (using `maint` would create too much potential for confusion). Thoughts?

11 47

Re: Next steps
by Stelian Ionescu 17 Nov '21

17 Nov '21

>> You don't have to use the Quicklisp client to load dependencies, just to fetch them (as a package manager). >> And for that, I think it should be always used this way. > > I work on multiple projects which do not use Quicklisp at all, for a variety of reasons which are not worth going into here, but which are unavoidable. And I work on other projects which use Quicklisp for some dependencies, but have other dependencies which cannot be in Quicklisp, again for a variety of reasons. Using one of the Quicklisp monthly distributions as a base does not preclude one from having local dependencies. -- Stelian Ionescu

1 0

Re: Next steps
by Robert Goldman 17 Nov '21

17 Nov '21

Not sure what the syntax is, but I agree that holding to a fixed number of arguments will be best, particularly for filtering out syntax errors. On 17 Nov 2021, at 11:51, phoebe Goldman wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.info> > wrote: >> >> version constraints like (:version "my-unstable-library" < 3) or >> something like that will go in to ASDF. >> >> > > Might I suggest the syntax: > > (:version "my-lib" (:min "2")) ; equiv to (:version "my-lib" "3") > (:version "my-lib" (:below "3")) ; not :MAX, because this is an > exclusive bound > (:version "my-lib" (:range "2" "3")) ; inclusive lower, exclusive > upper bound > > I believe it is both useful and aesthetically pleasing to keep the > :version form to exactly three elements. > > cheers, > phoebe

2 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
138
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

asdf-devel