i would be as well. that's why i sent it to you at the other end of a link.
in any case, whatever direction the component location computations follow, they need somehow to take into account the variations in pathname construction which ccl/sbcl evidence. On 2010-03-05, at 20:14 , Robert Goldman wrote: > On 3/5/10 Mar 5 -12:06 PM, james anderson wrote: >> good evening; >> >> on the occasion of pushing de.setf.graphics down the wire, when i >> built it for ccl/sbcl i did an obligatory pull on asdf and observe >> that something changed in the treatment of modules' component >> relative pathnames. with the effect that it was no longer possible >> possible to build clx. the clx-0-7-4 version as (:relative) >> specification in module pathnames which ran afoul of the asdf >> changes. i applied the same tactic as i have previously found >> effective for source file components and was able to build. the diff >> [1] is posted with the graphics sources. >> >> on other semi-related matters, i can report, that i have now an s3 >> ami (linux-2.6.31+ubuntu++^3) with which i can boot an ec2 instance >> with all pieces in place to run the target lisp implementations. >> >> >> --- >> [1] : http://github.com/lisp/de.setf.graphics/blob/master/readmes/ >> asdf.diff > > I reviewed this modification and I'm not sure I understand the > implications. This seems to squash Fare's > component-name-to-pathname-components call, and I don't know what > implications that has for his newfangled component names like (:file > "foo/bar"). [As an aside, do we have tests for these? I see them only > in test-module-pathnames and only in one location...] > > I'm reluctant to apply this patch without more understanding of its > effects. > > Best, > r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
