On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Michael Raskin f9cef2aa@yandex.ru wrote:
Right. I don't think many projects are using uffi-compat explicitly though.
As opposed to what? With ASDF-Install one has to state all dependencies clearly...
Well, a common use case is to take a library that supposedly depends on UFFI and make it use CFFI-UFFI-COMPAT through a uffi-compat/uffi.asd. ASDF-Install doesn't quite fit in this scenario, no.
So maybe you could take the second option and not bind UFFI nickname on ECL.
That sounds like a sensible thing to do, along with a style warning perhaps. Can you confirm that such a warning wouldn't conflict with your asdf-install efforts?
Well, ASDF tolerates style-warnings successfully. As far as I remember ASDF-Install doesn't look beyond what ASDF tells it about package health.
I will make this tweak to uffi-compat. I still think you should explicitly change your .asd to not depend on uffi-compat when running on ECL. (I would also advise you to use something like clbuild rather than asdf-install, but that's another matter. :-))