On 22 Jan 2011, at 22:05, Faré wrote: > 2011/1/22 Pascal Costanza <[email protected]>: >> The reason why I'm having problems is probably because I want to create a >> setup that works the same for all the Common Lisp implementations that I'm >> using. (I'm the maintainer of Closer to MOP, and this requires regular >> testing on several CL implementations, including RMCL, which is still in use >> by several parties.) >> > Uh, considering that RMCL has a different idea of what your > user-homedir-pathname is than unix-aware Lisps, why not just have two > sets of configuration files, one that works on Unix, and one that > works for RMCL?
I prefer to have a single configuration file, so I don't have to maintain different configuration files in parallel. >> The other option is to use *central-registry*, but one goal for me was to >> switch to the new recommended configuration options. Referring to section >> 7.1 of the ASDF user manual, none of the options described there seem to >> work with RMCL, as far as I can tell, because ASDF 2 seems to make strong >> assumptions about what physical pathnames are supposed to look like >> (basically, Unixy), and these assumptions simply don't hold at all for RMCL. >> > No, I took enormous pains so that ASDF2 shall make no assumption what > physical pathnames look like. It either passes pathnames and > namestrings directly to the implementation, or, when defining > components, it passes pathnames directly and interprets strings using > its own portable implementation of Unixy relative pathnames. Maybe this is where I'm misunderstanding some of the internal workings of ASDF 2. But I am seeing hard-coded physical pathnames, such as ".config/common-lisp/", all of over the place in asdf.lisp. What am I missing? >> This converts one particular configuration file into a form that is >> understood by *central-registry*. The binaries are then stored in some >> subfolder of the RMCL folder, but that's ok. This is all not beautiful, but >> it works. >> >> Note that I'm not trying to put any pressure on anybody to fix this for me. >> I know that such portability issues are very difficult to deal with, and >> it's already amazing how well ASDF 2 works in that regard. >> >> But please don't remove support *central-registry* in a future version of >> ASDF, unless you make the rest more portable. >> > We do not intend to remove support for *central-registry* any time soon. OK, good. >> Any comments about what I may be missing, or suggestions for better >> workarounds, are of course welcome. >> > If this is the kind of issues you're having, I suppose I should be > declaring ASDF2 as now working on RMCL. Well, so far it only worked for me using the hack I described. I guess I'm doing something wrong... Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel Software Languages Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
