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

[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

3 2

[asdf-devel] ASDF3, or Why Lisp is Now an Acceptable Scripting Language
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Dear Common Lispers, I've submitted this article to ELS 2014. Happily, the deadline has been extended by two weeks, which leaves me time to rewrite it better, with your feedback. Can some of you proofread the article, both/either at a low-level and a high-level? I feel I didn't tie the parts of the article together enough, especially the end, that I rushed. What is worse, the limit is 16 pages, and I went overboard (NB: appendices don't count), so I'll have to cut stuff or move it to appendices. The source code: https://github.com/fare/asdf3-2013/blob/master/asdf3-2014.scrbl The latest compiled versions: http://fare.tunes.org/files/tmp/asdf/asdf3-2014.html http://fare.tunes.org/files/tmp/asdf/asdf3-2014.pdf Is this article useful at all? What high-level questions would you like answered? Note how writing this article has led to a lot of improvements to ASDF and cl-launch in the last few weeks, and is driving some of the discussions currently on asdf-devel. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction — from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work.

1 0

[asdf-devel] New status of Mac tests
by Robert P. Goldman 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

All passing, with the exception of test-stamp-propagation on ABCL. Grr! As before: TEST ABORTED: These two expressions fail comparison with EQUAL: (SANITIZE-LOG (RELOAD ASDF/DEFSYSTEM:DEFSYSTEM)) evaluates to ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM)) (QUOTE ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE2) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE2))) evaluates to ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE2) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE2)) Above backtrace due to this condition: These two expressions fail comparison with EQUAL: (ASDF-TEST::SANITIZE-LOG (ASDF-TEST::RELOAD ASDF/DEFSYSTEM:DEFSYSTEM)) evaluates to ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM)) (QUOTE ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE2) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE2))) evaluates to ((:COMPILING :SYSTEM) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE1) (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL :FILE2) (:LOAD-TOPLEVEL :FILE2)) Will test on Linux and report results from there, too.

2 1

Re: [asdf-devel] Alternate default lisp system location
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

>>: Faré >: janderson >> Daniel, if you want changes only every 5 to 10 years, do like >> janderson: try an upgrade every 5 years, find that it breaks your code >> somehow and downgrade back to the old version without further >> investigation. Then maybe 10 years from now you'll get the system >> dependency bug fixed. > > if one wishes to ascribe expectations to my actions, allow me to correct the > presumption, as more accurate would be the hope, in ten years to have the > luxury to work with a build system which leaves my dependency descriptions > alone and uses them to do what it should, without failing for unrelated > reasons. > Well, after 5 to 10 years, some amount of bitrot is to be expected, especially for software that wasn't abandoned but saw active development. It is very unfair of you to complain without ever submitting a bug report: we get no chance to defend ourselves. Did we do something stupid? Did you? Was the issue a known backward incompatibility? Was there a trivial fix, whether already documented or not yet? We'll never know. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org You can of course keep using any old ASDF 1 you like, or whichever or even MK-DEFSYSTEM, which is quite stable. Only if you ever want to use recent libraries that depend on new ASDF features or bug fixes, will you have to upgrade your ASDF.

1 0

[asdf-devel] ASDF, primary-system-name and Quicklisp
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Dear Common Lispers, Zach reminds me that one thing is blocking his upgrading the ASDF in Quicklisp is the fact that currently, every user-defined function in *system-definition-search-functions* currently has to be aware of ASDF 3's primary-system-name feature, or it may fail to properly extend ASDF. Here is a patch that will hopefully make things better: whenever ASDF is looking for a non-primary system, it first looks for the associated primary system, in case it defines necessary meta-data. Zach, can you test? If this satisfies you, there's a chance of getting it out of the door as part of the imminent ASDF 3.0.3 release (or else, 3.0.4 next month or so, I hope). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org If Government is the solution to any alleged "failure" of free society, what is the solution to blatant failures of Government?

1 1

[asdf-devel] Bundle tweaks, commit policy
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Dear Robert, since I'm tweaking bundle-op, what about we rename fasl-op and load-fasl-op to compile-bundle-op and load-bundle-op? For backward compatibility, we would leave the old names as trivial selfward-operation's that depend on the new ones. That's the kind of change that requires maintainer approval. NB: I've been taking the liberty to commit stuff without review when I feel it's "just bug fixes" and nothing worth of a policy decision. Also, since I've done it so much in this current release, some increment of it won't make things worse. But if I'm taking too much liberty, please tell me: I can stop now, and/or I can be more cautious after your 3.1.1 release. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them they translate into their own language, and forthwith it is something entirely different. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

1 0

[asdf-devel] Fwd: ASDF testing for LWW
by Faré 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Excellent: Fabrice's testing with LispWorks revealed an issue in with-temporary-file, that was not designed to play well with mandatory locking, as is the default on Windows, used by LispWorks. I therefore refactored with-temporary-file to work well in this case, added tests, and refactored run-program to account for this locking issue. I also pushed fixes for the issues that Fabrice mentioned. Thanks a lot, Fabrice! And thanks a lot Dave, for doing so much testing on Windows... this has led to plenty of fixes to many implementations as well as to ASDF. So... is there any obstacle left to release? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The Biggest City / Only makes you truly feel / Crushed by loneliness.

1 0

[asdf-devel] How can I intercept errors?
by Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

As a maintainer of a Common Lisp implementation I am really not interested on ASDF intercepting errors without allowing me to do a proper backtrace because it jumps to a different, outer context. How can I prevent this? The code right now has evolved to such a different shape that I cannot know how to do it by myself :-/ Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

2 2

Test failure on ABCL, Mac OSX
by Robert Goldman 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

test-encodings fails for me on ABCL 1.1.1 I believe that this is a long-standing failure, yes? Best, r

2 2

[asdf-devel] module description option
by Mirko Vukovic 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

I find that defsystem accepts the :description keyword in modules and I use it for my asdf documentation. But I don't see it documented in the asdf manual (on http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf.html) Is this an undocumented feature? I would hate to see it go away. Mirko

1 0