June 2017 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

Re: Testing Quicklisp with ASDF
by Faré 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov(a)yandex.ru> wrote: > Finally results: > > No new failures on ASDF 3.1.7 and 3.2.1. > Yaaaay! > ASDF 3.3.0 has failures: > https://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-65.html > Thanks. Interesting. A whole lot of failures seem to be related to using now-deprecated functions, that since 3.2.0 where causing ASDF to issue a STYLE-WARNING, but with 3.3.0 are causing it to issue a full WARNING. I'll send patches. Sent new patches: * metatilities - was already fixed, but quicklisp had the old darcs repo https://github.com/quicklisp/quicklisp-projects/issues/1323 * mgl-pax (affects micmac) https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax/pull/3 * weblocks https://github.com/skypher/weblocks/pull/53 * wuwei https://github.com/mtravers/wuwei/pull/16 * yaclml https://github.com/sharplispers/yaclml/pull/1 Still unmerged from my work last time(!), looks unmaintained, sent a ping: * bknr-web https://github.com/hanshuebner/bknr-web/pull/4 * check-it https://github.com/DalekBaldwin/check-it/pull/20 * cl-blapack https://github.com/blindglobe/cl-blapack/pull/8 * cxml-rng (patch sent to the author; I could create a github mirror if needed) * jwacs https://github.com/chumsley/jwacs/pull/2 * macrodynamics https://github.com/DalekBaldwin/macrodynamics/pull/1 * madeira-port (affects sb-cga, mathkit, linedit, glkit) https://github.com/nikodemus/madeira-port/pull/6 * org-sampler (affects nst) (patch sent to the author, who doesn't use git) * s-dot (patch sent to the author, who doesn't use git) Works for me: * cl-rrt * eco * inner-conditional * toms717 I refuse to touch this: * lisp-executable Considering these results, I think that the candidate ASDF 3.3.0 would usefully be committed next month. What do you think? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org If you don't like yourself, you *can't* like other people. — Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"

3 10

the new read-depends branch is pushed
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

This is a solution that seems to work well enough to be reviewed for merging.

2 1

Problem with adding input files...
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

Recording the included files (from read-file-form and read-file-line) has so far failed to solve the problem of ASDF missing updates to the included files. I could use a little advice here. Running the test I have pushed, I tried tracing asdf/action:action-up-to-date-p. It is not called during the second invocation of (asdf:load-system "test-include") So at the moment I do not see how the flow of control works to decide whether or not it is necessary to redo the DEFINE-OP. And maybe DEFINE-OP isn't the operation that should be re-triggered by changes to the system definition file or included files? Is the right place for these new dependencies on included files DEFINE-OP or PREPARE-OP? thanks, r

2 7

Possible incompleteness in INPUT-FILES for DEFINE-OP
by Robert Goldman 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

I think I may have stumbled on an incompleteness in this method. Here's the test case: 1. Define a system. S1, with a version loaded from a version file; 2. Load S1 into session. 3. Hack hack hack. 4. Bump S1's version number in the version.lisp-expr file 5. Load S2 that depends on new version of S1. As far as I can tell, ASDF is simply checking the .asd file, not S1-version.lisp-expr, to see if it's stale. So my load in step 5 is failing. This is, I believe, because S1-version.lisp-expr is not in the set of INPUT-FILES for S1's DEFINE-OP. It's a little unsettling to change this on the fly, but I think the right thing is probably to push the version.lisp-expr file onto a set of ancillary dependencies when it's read. If this sounds right, I'll stick this in as a ticket, and try to find where we could inject a fix. Best, r

3 8

Random ASDF component question
by Robert Goldman 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Sorry to bother you, but why is it that the BUILD-OPERATION is attached to COMPONENT instead of SYSTEM?

2 1