Anton,
thanks a lot for the test! asdf 3.3.1.3 looks good to go.
Robert,
I had no trouble loading clws or lime with clisp, cl-rrt or cl-sat.minisat.test or inner-conditional-test with sbcl (using asdf 3.3.1.3 from master).
The ecl failures I could reproduce, but I'm not worried, as lisp-executable is not supported with recent asdf, and a reproducible out-of-memory error on one system :trivia.balland2006.enabled.test isn't outrageous.
CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap clisp -I -x "(and '(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :clws)) ())" CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap clisp -I -x "(and '(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :lime)) ())"
CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap sbcl --eval "(and '(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :cl-rrt)) ())" CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap sbcl --eval "(and '(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :cl-sat.minisat.test )) ())" CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap sbcl --eval "(and '(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :inner-conditional-test )) ())"
CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap ecl --eval "'(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :lisp-executable-example)#.(quit))" CL_SOURCE_REGISTRY='(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration)' rlwrap ecl --eval "'(#.(load "/home/fare/cl/asdf/build/asdf.lisp") #.(in-package :asdf) #.(upgrade-asdf) #.(load "~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") #.(ql:quickload :trivia.balland2006.enabled.test )#.(quit))"
Often failures in cl-test-grid are "just" the result of using too little memory, or batching system loads, or some other reason, and have to be retried.
I can try to activate that Windows VM and run the all the tests there, if you want...
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
Thanks for sending that. Had a quick look. One nice thing is that there's a very limited number of regressions. I'll look at those when I can.
Faré: I didn't believe it was possible to downgrade ASDF, but we see this here in a couple of cases for ECL. ECL is trying to reload "prebuilt-asdf". I think we can ignore these failures on ECL. They just should not do that, and it's not really and ASDF test failure if they load a conflicting version of ASDF, breaking our upgrade method.
clisp I refuse to care about, since it's effectively abandonware, unless you are willing to build from source, which I am not. Certainly clisp 2.49 is abandonware.k
That leaves only the SBCL and ACL failures for us to worry about.... I'm pretty busy this weekend, but I will have a look.
Best, Robert
On 15 Feb 2018, at 22:11, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
Robert, what delay are you apologizing for? I'm aware only of the delay from my side. :)
The results for ASDF 3.3.1.3: https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-72.html
Lisps tested so far:
abcl-1.5.0-fasl43-linux-x86
acl-10.0s-linux-x86
ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86
clisp-2.49-unix-x86
ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode
ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c
sbcl-1.3.21-linux-x86
Best regards,
- Anton
14.02.2018, 22:02, "Robert Goldman" rpgoldman@sift.net:
OK, as I said, sorry about the delay. Anton, in place of Fare's #3 below, will you please just test what's in the `syntax-control-based-on-standard-syntax` branch? The comparison between 2 and 3 will tell us to what extent it's an issue to lock in standard syntax instead of whatever happens to be the current readtable when ASDF is loaded.
Thanks! r
On 13 Feb 2018, at 22:36, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
I'll get you a branch with the other setting for the syntax control, so you can just test with that instead of having to modify anything yourself. I'll get it pushed sometime tomorrow.
Sorry for the delay.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 13, 2018, at 20:15, Anton Vodonosov <[avodonosov@yandex.ru](mailto:avodonosov@yandex.ru)> wrote:
Faré, hello.
Sorry for replying so long - I'm almost paralyzed by too many things I need to deal with currently. I've started tests for the following commit. Will follow-up with the results.
commit 2a5bc3bece8f97fdf64dc73a4e0544a55ae38f9d Author: Robert P. Goldman <[rpgoldman@sift.net](mailto:rpgoldman@sift.net)> Date: Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600
Bump version to 3.3.1.3
02.02.2018, 23:06, "Faré" <[fahree@gmail.com](mailto:fahree@gmail.com)>:
Dear Anton,
can you run the below tests, in order or priority?
1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a. 3.3.1.3, as a release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users.
2- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0? We want to merge syntax control, but it's a significant enough change that we don't want it at the same time as the bug fixes. Also...
3- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, but with the following addition just after you load asdf but before you start using it: (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* (copy-readtable nil)) ? Indeed, we want to see what breaks if we disable extensions implementation-specific reader extensions. Test most important on CCL. I don't expect much breakage on other implementations, but it may exist, too.
4- While you're at it, can you also run the test, at least on sbcl, with (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* uiop:*standard-readtable*)) ? This will detect what breaks when we make the default readtable read-only.
The thing is, we really want to have this syntax control, but we also want to preserve backward compatibility, and we can't make asdf stricter until every client is fixed (famous last word; of course we failed at exactly that in 3.3.1 — we could build correctly, but would also spuriously rebuild if secondary systems were misnamed; fixed in 3.3.1.3).
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86 http://blog.quicklisp.org/2018/01/build-failures-with-asdf-331.html
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• [http://fare.tunes.org%5D(http://fare.tunes.org/) A friend once asked me if I had ever considered terrorism as a means for political change. I replied that yes, I had considered it... and rejected it. Because it only causes change for the worse. Killing innocent people does not promote a culture of peaceful interaction.