On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about instead investing in XCVB? >
As much as I would like to have something simplify my life, it is not my choice to use one system or another. I was suggesting something that might help rationalize the current library situation. > Such enforcement will necessarily introduce backward incompatibility and > pain, > which I think goes contrary to the goals of ASDF. > I am not talking about something that HAS to be enforced, but that it can be optional. It is by no means a good coding practice to put things in the *.asd file that do not belong in it. Promoting this message from the ASDF development forum is not wrong by itself and need not cause any pain at all -- a warning message somewhere in the build, explaining the situation of the libraries in the system does not cause such a panic or disrupture, does it? I think it should be spoken clearly here about what is expected also from the ASDF maintainers. Either you envision it as a hack until something better comes along, or you consider the possibility of gradually evolving towards something better. > As to systems that currently use weird ASDF extensions, > you could either make XCVB's ASDF converter better, > or just convert these systems by hand. > Conversion by hand is not an option. No time and no will on my side to track all libraries written out there. I also do not believe that it would help without support on the other side of the line: this should be done by the developers themselves once they discover that a build system provides some advantage. Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://tream.dreamhosters.com
_______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
