On 3/5/10 Mar 5 -2:18 PM, james anderson wrote:
i would be as well.
that's why i sent it to you at the other end of a link.
I followed the link to the diff. What more should I have seen?
Also, it would be helpful if you would describe precisely the breakage you have observed (what precisely happened to the module pathnames?).
In that case, we can abstract a simpler version and turn it into a test case. We can't reverse engineer such a test case out of the description below, and it's probably expecting too much for us to pull your git repo and try to build it just in order to extract a bug.
Would it be possible for you to reformulate this as a launchpad bug?
I'm afraid I'm very busy with paying work now, and won't be able to do much more than push a very clear patch for the next week or so. Maybe someone else has more time.
Best, R
in any case, whatever direction the component location computations follow, they need somehow to take into account the variations in pathname construction which ccl/sbcl evidence.
On 2010-03-05, at 20:14 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/5/10 Mar 5 -12:06 PM, james anderson wrote:
good evening;
on the occasion of pushing de.setf.graphics down the wire, when i built it for ccl/sbcl i did an obligatory pull on asdf and observe that something changed in the treatment of modules' component relative pathnames. with the effect that it was no longer possible possible to build clx. the clx-0-7-4 version as (:relative) specification in module pathnames which ran afoul of the asdf changes. i applied the same tactic as i have previously found effective for source file components and was able to build. the diff [1] is posted with the graphics sources.
on other semi-related matters, i can report, that i have now an s3 ami (linux-2.6.31+ubuntu++^3) with which i can boot an ec2 instance with all pieces in place to run the target lisp implementations.
[1] : http://github.com/lisp/de.setf.graphics/blob/master/readmes/ asdf.diff
I reviewed this modification and I'm not sure I understand the implications. This seems to squash Fare's component-name-to-pathname-components call, and I don't know what implications that has for his newfangled component names like (:file "foo/bar"). [As an aside, do we have tests for these? I see them only in test-module-pathnames and only in one location...]
I'm reluctant to apply this patch without more understanding of its effects.
Best, r
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel