On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Zach Beane xach@xach.com wrote:
Faré fahree@gmail.com writes:
Sure. Which format do you prefer? If I remember correctly, you will want a directory asdf-driver-2.26.100/ containing the code.
Either format is fine. Sometimes a tarball implies a level of release engineering.
That begs the question: how should asdf be distributed? As asdf.lisp only? As a tarball or git checkout with everything? As a tarball with only the asdf-specific source files, to be combined with asdf-driver code into asdf.lisp? Some or all of the above? As for me, I'll keep using the git checkout, but I suppose you might have ideas as to what you prefer for quicklisp.
PS: I'm declaring asdf-utils and xcvb-utils obsolete and will be removing them. I've also stripped xcvb-driver of all its portability layer and will redirect my packages (such as inferior-shell) to use asdf-driver instead. I was sorely missing the pathname portability in xcvb-driver, and it has now been cleaned up and documented in asdf-driver.
A number of my private projects depend on asdf-utils. If you do not wish to maintain it, please let someone else do it.
Then I am inclined to make asdf-utils an alias for asdf-driver, and add the nickname :asdf-utils to :asdf/driver. All the functions in asdf-utils are present in asdf-driver (Well, I admit I refactored away a few that couldn't be found used on quicklisp, but they hopefully won't be missed; for instance if you rely on the old name coerce-pathname instead of the more general parse-unix-namestring, buzz me.) And yes, I am willing to maintain it for the time being. It is also still time to wholly rename asdf-driver into asdf-utils, if you think that is preferable: you're the only user I've heard of.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. — H. L. Mencken