Dear Juanjo,
is it OK with you if unbundle asdf-ecl from asdf.asd, and instead create a somewhat portable asdf extension called asdf-bundle.asd ?
Impact: when the unbundling is complete, ecl users will be encouraged to (require :asdf-bundle) instead or in addition to (require :asdf) if they want to use the extensions currently provided in asdf-ecl.
But it will make the bundle-op operations available to other implementations in a more portable way.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org To authorize all commercial relations between consenting adults.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 22:38, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Juanjo,
is it OK with you if unbundle asdf-ecl from asdf.asd, and instead create a somewhat portable asdf extension called asdf-bundle.asd ?
Impact: when the unbundling is complete, ecl users will be encouraged to (require :asdf-bundle) instead or in addition to (require :asdf) if they want to use the extensions currently provided in asdf-ecl.
But it will make the bundle-op operations available to other implementations in a more portable way.
Also, and I probably need Michael's approval here, is it OK to re-publish the contents from asdf-ecl under an MIT license? That would make it much easier for many users if it had the same license as ASDF itself.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org In a free market there are no market failures, only market opportunities. In a bureaucracy there is no possible success, only a perpetual ever-worsening crisis.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
is it OK with you if unbundle asdf-ecl from asdf.asd, and instead create a somewhat portable asdf extension called asdf-bundle.asd ?
I would need some time to do that -- this means not before the next release. What bundle operations make sense in other implementations? Concatenating FASLs seems to work in SBCL (at least last time I tried), but that, CLISP and CCL are about the implementations I have.
One thing that worries me about unbundling it is that being an extension, ECL users no longer have it by default -- they have to make an extra effort.
Juanjo
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 02:08, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll juanjose.garciaripoll@googlemail.com wrote:
is it OK with you if unbundle asdf-ecl from asdf.asd, and instead create a somewhat portable asdf extension called asdf-bundle.asd ?
I would need some time to do that -- this means not before the next release. What bundle operations make sense in other implementations? Concatenating FASLs seems to work in SBCL (at least last time I tried), but that, CLISP and CCL are about the implementations I have.
Oh, it's not meant to be ready before the next release. But if you agree to the principle, then further development (barring urgent bug fixes) can move to a new asdf-bundle repository, and there will be fewer merge headaches.
One thing that worries me about unbundling it is that being an extension, ECL users no longer have it by default -- they have to make an extra effort.
Yeah. That would either mean that ECL users have to replace (require :asdf) with (require :asdf-bundle) to use its features, or (require :asdf) could somehow be mapped to a bundle that includes the equivalent of (asdf:load-system :asdf-bundle) or maybe (asdf:load-system :asdf-contrib), including other contribs such as asdf-encodings. Hopefully the future asdf-bundle to be will support this kind of setups.
Or then again, maybe I should be working on XCVB instead.
In any case, I have created these repos: ssh://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/git/asdf-bundle.git ssh://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/git/asdf-contrib.git aka git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf-bundle.git git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf-contrib.git
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Does artillery violate the natural rights of the target? I would say: the entire *purpose* of artillery is to violate the natural rights of the target.
-
Faré -
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll