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

Introspection of system version
by Frank 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Hello, In the system definition we can specify a version; for example: (asdf:defsystem :foo :description "foo utility" :license "LGPL" :version (:read-file-form "VERSION") :serial t :components ((:file "foo"))) For example I can query the system license like this: (asdf:system-licence (asdf:find-system "foo")) How can I query the version of system foo at run time? Thanks, Frank

3 3

Fixed performance bug in UIOP:DIRECTORY-FILES
by Faré 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

I bumped ASDF to 3.1.7.1 after I fixed a performance bug in directory-files that made it quadratic instead of linear, due to some remove-duplicates used for logical-pathnames. The fix was to only use this quadratic behavior for LPNs. If you use LPNs, you deserve to lose on large directories. LPNs are for legacy Lisp code with relatively few files, only. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The best of all regimes is one where I am the head honcho of a worldwide empire. — Winston Churchill (his most famous quip, as translated to plain English)

3 6

Altering ASDF execution plan
by Vsevolod Dyomkin 30 May '16

30 May '16

Hi, I have a few questions about controlling ASDF execution of compile/load operations: 1. Suppose I have performed successful `load-op` on a certain system. After some time and no changes to the source code of the system nor its dependencies, I run `load-system` again on the same system. How can I ensure that no compile/load action is performed? 2. Suppose I have a system `foo` that depends on `bar`. Now, I explicitly call `(load-system :bar)`. How can I ensure that when I call `(load-system :foo)` no compile/load action is performed on `bar`? Sorry, maybe, these questions are trivial, but I couldn't find definite answers in the docs. --- Vsevolod Dyomkin +38-096-111-41-56 skype, twitter: vseloved

3 2

:FEATURE dependency-def
by Robert Goldman 20 May '16

20 May '16

Is it just me, or is the :FEATURE dependency-def form undocumented in the manual? It is *mentioned* in the grammar, but I don't see it documented -- except for the misleading mention that the :FEATURE *requirement* has been removed from ASDF. # This is used in :depends-on, as opposed to ``dependency,'' # which is used in :in-order-to dependency-def := simple-component-name | ( :feature FEATURE-EXPRESSION dependency-def ) | ( :version simple-component-name version-specifier ) | ( :require module-name ) I'm actually not sure what the semantics of this should be: 1. if the FEATURE is present, include dependency-def and 2a. If the FEATURE is absent FAIL or 2b. If the FEATURE is absent, quietly succeed. If the semantics is intended to be the latter -- and that's how I read the relevant code in find-component.lisp -- how does a programmer say "if this feature is not present, my system should not compile"? I stubbed my toe on this absent-mindedly compiling Didier's decLt system on Allegro Common Lisp. That system doesn't, and cannot, function on ACL, but ASDF tells us it has compiled successfully. Instead, what seems to happen is that the net.didierverna.declt.core system depends on (:feature :sbcl :sb-introspect) which simply seems to fail quietly on ACL, in what looks like the worst possible way: the attempt to laod net.didierverna.declt returns T, the guts of the system is not loaded (seems like this feature system somehow keeps core from continuing to load), and no error message is issued. Actually, I don't claim to understand why this happens -- it looks to me like RESOLVE-DEPENDENCY-SPEC should return NIL, and the load should continue (trying to load the :net.didierverna.declt.core system and succeeding -- or more likely choking when it hits a reference to :SB-INTROSPECT). But somehow it's failing to load. I'll see if I can make a minimal test case and file a bug, but I could use some guidance about what was intended. If the semantics of :FEATURE are like those of :IF-FEATURE, as I suspect, it seems like they aren't working here. And, if that's what's intended, how do we get the "fail if this feture is absent" behavior that a programmer might like? thanks, r

5 12

Re: How to fix arnesi:clean-op.
by Robert Goldman 15 May '16

15 May '16

I am inclined to agree with Andreas. I don't see that CLEAN-OP is impossible for ASDF. I can see that there are some issues that require thought, and for some systems additional coding by the developer, but I don't see that as an insuperable barrier. After all, "make clean" is in some sense impossible (it's generally hand-coded by the programmer), but we use it every day. I accept Faré's points about there being challenges to write an ideal CLEAN-OP. But I don't agree that this means that we can't write a good enough CLEAN-OP. After all, make manages "make clean." Yes, it requires some effort from the programmer, but who cares? Is that a reason we have to throw up our hands and refuse to do anything? Here are some specific responses to particular issues. On the other hand, while I don't agree that these make the CLEAN-OP impossible, I *do* agree that they are difficult issues. So... I'd be happy to see CLEAN-OP added, and I'd be happy to support this effort, *BUT* CLEAN-OP patches must be preceded -- by an informal specification that describes what an implementation should do, covering these cases. Now that ASDF is on everyone's critical path, we need to think a little before changing it, and not just bash out a hunk of code. Specific responses to Faré's issues: 1. clean-op is not defined in general. I believe that this means "do we clean the system" or "do we clean the operation" [as in arnesi, whose CLEAN-OP has a FOR-OP]? This seems similar to the notion that Faré already had, of providing a BUILD-OP that does "the default build action" for a system (e.g., maybe it builds the library? Maybe it does LOAD-OP? Maybe it does LOAD-OP and DOC-OP?). So one solution would be to have an UNMAKE-OP that does the inverse of the build-op, and then have a CLEAN-OP that undoes specific operations (like the arnesi CLEAN-OP). Then the UNMAKE-OP might default to being the CLEAN-OP for COMPILE-OP, which would handle probably 90% of systems. On the other hand, I'm pretty unhappy with the notion of the BUILD-OP, because it requires retraining every single user of ASDF to use BUILD-OP instead of LOAD-OP. That would be an enormous user interface fail. So this is not a step to be taken lightly. 2. I think we can simply make clean-op clean for the current implementation. 3. I believe we should mirror the semantics of :FORCE T and :FORCE ALL when we unmake. I.e., unbuild the dependencies only with :FORCE :ALL. :FORCE T would actually be a no-op. 4. "How do you deal with defsystem-depends-on and other dependencies not explicitly included in the plan?" DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON is already broken, and will be deprecated, except as a checkable declaration (see earlier postings on this list for a description of the issues). For the rest, I'd say same as above -- if there's something that won't appear in the build plan that one needs to clean, then the programmer must write an :IN-ORDER-TO for the CLEAN-OP so that ASDF can know what it needs to do. 5. "Are you sure there aren't bugs and omissions in asdf or any extension whereby some side output file is omitted from the list?" ow does make deal with a file that isn't listed in the rule for "make clean"? You miss it. Very sorry. Fix your system definition. Use (:in-order-to (clean-op ....)) 6. "What about randomly-named temporary files created during an operation that has been interrupted?" Maybe we are doing the Wrong Thing with these. If they are temporary files, maybe it's the wrong thing to put them in the cache and rename them? Maybe they should live in /tmp (or equivalent) and be moved from there? Then it's not our problem to fix anymore -- that's for tmpwatch. If you add your own rules that make temporary files, you have to add your own rules that remove them. 7. "What if load-op is not the only operation that matters, but e.g. doc-op generates LaTeX and PDF outputs but fails to be tracked by clean-op? Are you going to use the CLOS MOP to generate a list of all possible operations? What if that other operation isn't loaded in the current image? What if operation options cause different files to be generated? Or features? What about all secondary systems? Are you going to generate a plan for them, too?" See the answer to #1: ASDF is not going to solve this problem. Either the programmer solves it using definitions of PERFORM and IN-ORDER-TO, or it's not solved. So sad. But I don't see any reason to avoid the 90% solution because there isn't a 100% solution. Best, r

3 7

Error loading SBCL contribs
by Stelian Ionescu 08 May '16

08 May '16

I think SBCL commit 25c1769e30ff7404b52a9be663626d87f8ff75bc broke the use of deferred warnings. If I compile SBCL and exec ./run-sbcl.sh, I get this error during Quicklisp initialization: ; file: /home/hechee/lisp/quicklisp/quicklisp/impl.lisp ; in: DEFINE-IMPLEMENTATION-PACKAGE :SBCL ; (REQUIRE 'QL-IMPL::SB-POSIX) ; ; caught WARNING: ; completing compilation for #<REQUIRE-SYSTEM "sb-posix"> completed without its output file #P"/home/hechee/work/src/sbcl/obj/sbcl-home/contrib/sb-posix.build-report" ; ; caught WARNING: ; completing load for #<REQUIRE-SYSTEM "sb-posix"> completed without its input file #P"/home/hechee/work/src/sbcl/obj/sbcl-home/contrib/sb-posix.build-report" ; (REQUIRE 'QL-IMPL::SB-BSD-SOCKETS) ; ; caught WARNING: ; completing compilation for #<REQUIRE-SYSTEM "sb-bsd-sockets"> completed without its output file #P"/home/hechee/work/src/sbcl/obj/sbcl-home/contrib/sb-bsd-sockets.build-report" ; ; caught WARNING: ; completing load for #<REQUIRE-SYSTEM "sb-bsd-sockets"> completed without its input file #P"/home/hechee/work/src/sbcl/obj/sbcl-home/contrib/sb-bsd-sockets.build-report" While evaluating the form starting at line 129, column 0 of #P"/home/hechee/lisp/quicklisp/setup.lisp": While evaluating the form starting at line 57, column 0 of #P"/home/hechee/.cl-init/asdf-init.lisp": debugger invoked on a UIOP/LISP-BUILD:COMPILE-FILE-ERROR in thread #<THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {1002FC6A13}>: COMPILE-FILE-ERROR while compiling #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "quicklisp" "impl"> Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:EXIT) to exit from SBCL. restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name): 0: [RETRY ] Retry compiling #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "quicklisp" "impl">. 1: [ACCEPT ] Continue, treating compiling #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "quicklisp" "impl"> as having been successful. 2: Retry ASDF operation. 3: [CLEAR-CONFIGURATION-AND-RETRY] Retry ASDF operation after resetting the configuration. 4: [RETRY ] Retry EVAL of current toplevel form. 5: [CONTINUE ] Ignore error and continue loading file "/home/hechee/lisp/quicklisp/setup.lisp". 6: [ABORT ] Abort loading file "/home/hechee/lisp/quicklisp/setup.lisp". 7: Retry EVAL of current toplevel form. 8: Ignore error and continue loading file "/home/hechee/.cl-init/asdf-init.lisp". 9: Abort loading file "/home/hechee/.cl-init/asdf-init.lisp". 10: Retry EVAL of current toplevel form. 11: Ignore error and continue userinit file "/home/hechee/.sbclrc". 12: Abort userinit file "/home/hechee/.sbclrc". 13: Skip to toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop. 14: [EXIT ] Exit SBCL (calling #'EXIT, killing the process). (UIOP/LISP-BUILD:CHECK-LISP-COMPILE-RESULTS NIL T T "~/asdf-action::format-action/" ((#<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:COMPILE-OP > . #<ASDF/LISP-ACTION:CL-SOURCE-FILE "quicklisp" "impl">))) source: (ERROR 'COMPILE-FILE-ERROR :CONTEXT-FORMAT CONTEXT-FORMAT :CONTEXT-ARGUMENTS CONTEXT-ARGUMENTS) There's no obj/sbcl-home/contrib/sb-posix.build-report, or any build -report file, just several test-passed.test-report under obj/asdf -cache/ Funny though that I don't get this error if I exec sbcl through an absolute path, e.g. ~/work/src/sbcl/run-sbcl.sh, it's only when I call it from the source directory as ./run-sbcl.sh -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

1 0

How to fix arnesi:clean-op.
by TANIGUCHI Masaya 08 May '16

08 May '16

I want to do "make clean" on ASDF. I tried to use clean-op of ARNESI. I got a following message, WARNING: No dependency propagating scheme specified for operation class IT.BESE.ARNESI:CLEAN-OP. The class needs to be updated for ASDF 3.1 and specify appropriate propagation mixins. #<IT.BESE.ARNESI:CLEAN-OP > #<ASDF/PLAN:SEQUENTIAL-PLAN {1003A65533}> Definition of arnesi:clean-op is (defclass clean-op (asdf:operation) ((for-op :accessor for-op :initarg :for-op :initform 'asdf:compile-op)) (:documentation "Removes any files generated by an asdf component.")) (defmethod asdf:perform ((op clean-op) (c asdf:component)) "Delete all the output files generated by the component C." (dolist (f (asdf:output-files (make-instance (for-op op)) c)) (when (probe-file f) (delete-file f)))) (defmethod asdf:operation-done-p ((op clean-op) (c asdf:component)) "Returns T when the output-files of (for-op OP) C don't exist." (dolist (f (asdf:output-files (make-instance (for-op op)) c)) (when (probe-file f) (return-from asdf:operation-done-p nil))) t) How to fix it? Thanks. ta2gch

6 8

Is it possible to load multiple versions of the same system?
by Ian Tegebo 30 Apr '16

30 Apr '16

I've been reading the manual, papers, and slides on ASDF and XCVB. As a frame of reference, I prefer the qualities exhibited by Racket's implementation of modules. I was disappointed both to see XCVB bitrot, and then to see that a major ASDF overhaul would be necessary. That said, ignoring Racket/ASDF/XCVB, I'm curious about how loading multiple versions of the same system could possibly be implemented in Common Lisp (CL). I'm sure people have thought about it, but I'm having a hard time finding references. I'm afraid I've been skimming some of the material linked off of the ASDF and XCVB pages, so forgive me if I missed something. On the JVM, there's the notion of "classloader" that can be used to load multiple versions of the same class. Unfortunately, the only approach I can imagine is to use some form of package renaming. There appear to be several variations floating around [1], and the trade-offs aren't clear to me. If I think about how it might be done in ASDF, it seems like it would require a series of things: * intercept package definition to rename with version * :around-compile to handle some kind of per-system aliasing so code doesn't have to change * teaching dependency resolution how to find the renamed, versioned packages/systems But that's a wild guess. And the more I think about it, I wonder what to do about some code that uses strings to put together a symbol - I don't think symbol-macrolet can help there. [1] implementation-specific package-local-nicknames, :around-compile in ASDF, "pseudonyms" -- Ian Tegebo

4 7

How does one declare non-lisp dependencies?
by Ian Tegebo 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

While quickloading IOLib, g++ raised an error because it couldn't find "lfp.h". After digging around a bit, I realized I needed to install libfixposix. It seems like ASDF would already have a way to express this dependency, resulting in a clearer error message. If this doesn't already exist, what's the way to go about it? A :before method on prepare-op for cffi components (or some such, I'm just bluffing here)? -- Ian Tegebo

3 2

question about RUN-PROGRAM
by Robert Goldman 19 Apr '16

19 Apr '16

The DOCSTRING for RUN-PROGRAM says Run program specified by COMMAND, either a list of strings specifying a program and list of arguments, or a string specifying a shell command (/bin/sh on Unix, CMD.EXE on Windows); _synchronously_ process its output as specified and return the processing results when the program and its output processing are complete. So shouldn't RUN-PROGRAM always pass :WAIT T to %RUN-PROGRAM? A colleague of mine anecdotally reported that he wasn't getting output from a call to RUN-PROGRAM until he caught and printed the return value. This is on ALLEGRO, where RUN-PROGRAM invokes EXCL:RUN-SHELL-COMMAND and, I believe, should always be using WAIT, no? Thanks, r

2 1