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

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

Simple use of output-translations
by Raymond Toy 22 Oct '21

22 Oct '21

I want to do a simple output translation and I just can't figure out what the sexp dsl would be for that. What I want to do. Let's say my asd file is in src/foo/proj.asd. What I want is when I build the project, the fasls go in output/foo. I just can't figure out how to set up the output translations to make this happen. I'm too stupid to grok the section in the manual about the sexp dsl for translations. Help would be appreciated. More examples in the manual (and an updated section?) would be really helpful too. -- Ray

3 3

Not watching asdf anymore
by Faré 19 Oct '21

19 Oct '21

Dear ASDF developers, just writing this email to tell you that I'm no longer watching ASDF's gitlab, and at some point I may stop reading this mailing list. I'm happy to see that ASDF is in good hands, but the current activity is already too much for me. Between running a company and having jumped ship to Gerbil Scheme, I have stopped caring enough about CL and ASDF. If you have questions about why I did things a particular way in ASDF, or how to resolve some conundrum, I'll be happy to reply to questions, but then be sure to send them to my personal email. Happy hacking! —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. — Lew Mammel, Jr.

1 0

Rejiggering the branches
by Robert Goldman 14 Jul '21

14 Jul '21

As we move forward, and try to add some new facilities to ASDF, this seems like a good time to revise the branching structure that we use. In particular, I would like to add a `stable` branch that will permit continuation of the 3.3 release series, the need for which is illustrated by Mark E's recent merge request. If we are going to make that change, it seems like a good time to rename the `master` branch to either `main` or `dev`. Any preferences? I'd like to have a quick discussion about this over the week, with an eye to getting a solution in place by Friday. Thanks for your thoughts, R

11 21

Implementor emails
by Robert Goldman 12 Jul '21

12 Jul '21

My email to the Corman Lisp address bounced, so I am dropping Corman Lisp from the mailing list, unless someone can point me at a working contact email. Also -- my emails to the various implementation development mailing lists are all on hold waiting for moderator approval (CCL, ABCL, clasp, ECL, CMUCL). Moderators -- if you are on this list, please add me to the accept list for your mailing list; I promise I won't abuse it, but I cannot spare the time to join all the implementations' mailing lists. Thanks, R

2 1

Build Debian release file?
by Robert Goldman 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

Is anyone out there willing and able to build the Debian library for 3.3.5? It's not something I am able to do myself. Eric T -- is there any chance we could put the Debian build process into the CI? That would be a big part of a solution, but would not be a *complete* solution, which requires pushing the new library to some magical Debian upload directory and signing it. I could never get this to work satisfactorily. Best, R

2 3

ASDF 3.3.5 is released!
by Robert Goldman 02 Jul '21

02 Jul '21

Today we release ASDF 3.3.5, the fifth bugfix release for the 3.3 release series. We urge implementations that are currently bundling previous versions of ASDF -- and especially those bundling 3.3.0 or 3.3.1 -- to upgrade to 3.3.5 at their earliest convenience. In addition to fixes that are generally applicable, there are fixes for ECL, LispWorks, and SBCL. As maintainer, my primary role has been coordination and some limited quality control. The real work for this release has been done by many contributors and bug-reporters, to whom the Common Lisp community owes a tremendous vote of thanks. Their names are listed on the Changelog, appended below. We *hope* that the next release will be 3.4, introducing new functionality but which, as the numbering suggests, will be backward compatible. Best, Robert cl-asdf (2:3.3.5-1) unstable; urgency=low * Fix bug in handling combination of :serial and :if-feature dependencies. * Add support for package local nicknames to UIOP:DEFINE-PACKAGE and ASDF's package-inferred systems. Extend support for package local nicknames to more lisp implementations. Initial work by François-René Rideau, with assists from Phoebe Goldman, Michał Herda, and Eric Timmons. * A number of fixes for Lispworks compatibility (thanks to Martin Simmons). * Fixes for SBCL and ECL from Eric Timmons and @pouar. * Add support for source files with different file extensions to package-inferred-systems. Thanks to Jingtao Xu for identifying the bug and providing a fix. * Fixes for UIOP:WITH-TEMPORARY-FILE * Miscellaneous bug fixes from Luís Oliveira, Gary Palter, François-René Rideau, and Eric Schulte. * Fix for argument handling in LAUNCH-PROGRAM. * Fixes for feature handling from Eric Timmons. * Replaced some of the internals of `parse-defsystem` with generic functions to enable modular extension. Thanks to Eric Timmons. * Faré provided more graceful upgrade capabilities, fixing bugs with upgrading support for local package nicknames, and with upgrading ABCL. -- Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman(a)sift.net> Fri, 2 Jul 2021 13:07:00 -0500

2 1

Last call before 3.3.5 bug fix release
by Robert Goldman 29 Jun '21

29 Jun '21

I'm going to release 3.3.5, which I *hope* will be the last bug fix release in the 3.3 series, either this afternoon or tomorrow. So this is the last call for bug fixes that should get in under the wire. I have reviewed the issues and the merge requests, and I don't see anything that can't be postponed. There are still issues with ABCL failing test-around-compile.script and test-run-program-unix.script, but to the best of my knowledge those are waiting for bug-fixes in ABCL, rather than in ASDF. If a new ABCL comes out and these are still broken, we can have a 3.3.6 ... So, speak now or forever hold your peace! Thanks, R

1 0