i would be as well.
that's why i sent it to you at the other end of a link.
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