The failures in http://cl-test-grid.appspot.com/blob?key=1v5pgltcap are interesting. The CCL specific failures, I fear I can't explain, and won't even try. The exscribe failure has no ASDF in its backtrace; this suggests that it's a Quicklisp failure, probably due to it being unable to parse (:feature :exscribe-typeset :cl-typesetting) as a dependency, and recursing into a non-existent system exscribe-typeset, when it's actually a feature that decides whether or not to depend on cl-typesetting. Admittedly, I should probably have designed things differently, and indeed have had a system exscribe-typeset that unconditionally depends on both and hooks into exscribe. What bothers me, then, is that the test only fails with the newer ASDF; why doesn't it fail with the old ASDF? What effective version of ASDF is loaded? Could cl-test-grid print that information in its header? Regarding the lil failure: is quicklisp somehow removing ASDF::SYSDEF-PACKAGE-SYSTEM-SEARCH from ASDF::*SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS* ? What is the value of the latter variable? But then why is it working with the old ASDF? My guess is that's because it does have ASDF/PACKAGE-SYSTEM builtin, so it loads it from the add-on system ASDF-PACKAGE-SYSTEM that installs the search function dropped by quicklisp. However, ~/quicklisp/quicklisp/setup.lisp looks like it's doing the right thing wrt *SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS*, and I don't see cl-test-grid touching it, so I'm not so sure anymore, and I'm a bit baffled actually. Note that at home, I have no trouble loading either lil or exscribe, with or without quicklisp, with or without the new asdf, using SBCL 1.1.13.41. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Every technique is first developed, then used, important, obsolete, normalized, and finally understood. On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
SBCL and CCL results have arrived.
Diff between ASDF HEAD and unpatched quicklisp: http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-24.html
Testing of ASDF HEAD is done by copying new asdf.lisp to to quicklisp/asdf.lisp and changing (defvar *required-asdf-version* "3.1.0.32") in quicklisp/setup.lisp.
This means quicklis first does (reqire 'asdf) and load the ASDF version provided by lisp implementation, and then upgrates to the newer ASDF.
31.12.2013, 12:42, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@yandex.ru> wrote:
31.12.2013, 12:32, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com>:
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. OK.
HEAD has 3 commits after 3.1.0.32. The tests are started for HEAD. Should we drop it and run for 3.1.0.32 or HEAD is better?
I recommend using the latest HEAD. The code should be the same (or I would have bumped the version). Changes only happened in documentation, build and test files.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org I am an atheist, thank God!