...

: fahree

: rpgoldman

...

Which UIOP patches were you thinking of? I fixed a simple one regarding ensure-function. I see other portability issues with directory* and symlinks, but I am not competent to address them.

I'm thinking of 1205555 https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1205555 and 1205653 https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1205653

I was hoping to get some work done on these, but that target is slipping.

I was thinking about them as well. Notice how the goals are opposite: one wants symlinks to be followed, the other not to.

I admit to trying to introducing the avoidance of recursing through symlinks, because in some cases it could cause infinite recursion, etc., especially when some software likes to have an uplink to a directory full of dependencies, and the software is in the same directory.

Although I would like there to be a semi-standard way to avoid symlinks, I understand it might not be possible, and the anti-symlink code might have to be removed, and such software will have to be amended.

You're the maintainer, you get to decide.

I just tested on an old and crufty linux box. Worked for ccl sbcl cmucl allegro allegromodern. ECL fails the test on my box. Goes into an infinite loop compiling test/file3.lisp -- gets an error in compilation, retries, gets an error ....

This may be the fact that I'm trying this on an ancient OpenSUSE box, with a distro version that's been EOLed, so that may be me, not ASDF.

If you could test with ECL, and it works for you, I am going to chalk this up to my ancient distro.

Which test script causes that? It's working here on ecl-13.5.1-914ce253-linux-x64

I don't have a good way to tell if ABCL is busted on Mac or our bundle op is busted on Mac.

Maybe we can convince someone on the ABCL team to run our tests?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do.