On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote:
I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it should be. Patch welcome.
Note that I bumped the version from 1.375 to 1.500 then 1.501. This to indicate that we're not using CVS anymore, that I've reached a milestone towards my goal of an "ASDF 2" that I could push as a replacement to ASDF. It passes the tests with SBCL. But the tests could be extended to do more.
Next, comes a similar revamp of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS configuration. Or maybe a wholesale replacement of ABL with something that's simpler and configured in a way similar to source-registry? What do YOU think?
I have an old copy of SBCL, 1.0.28, which I keep around (we pinned ourselves to that revision for a project I was working on), and I tried to run the test suite on this version of SBCL, 64-bit Mac.
The test suite failed, and here are the last several lines of the output:
; compilation unit finished ; caught 2 STYLE-WARNING conditions ; printed 1 note
; /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.fasl written ; compilation finished in 0:00:07.450 Testuite failed: ASDF compiled with warningsbash-3.2$
I thought that this might be a spurious failure having to do with being too stringent about what constitutes an ASDF compilation failure, so I tried to run the test suite again (figuring a compiled version of asdf.lisp would now be available), but it failed identically.
Is this expected? Should I ticket this?
I will report on ACL tests shortly.
Thanks, Robert