> :Robert
> Am I correct in thinking that Dave's way of building monolithic bundles of
> either fasls or source code are, at least potentially, a baby version of
> cross-compilation? It seems like these are interesting specifically because
> they could be loaded into different images (otherwise, it
On 16 Jan 2018, at 14:17, Faré wrote:
:Robert
In that case, it seems to me that
check-not-old-asdf-system may be simply inappropriate as a check in
some
(all?) bundle operations. But I would be hard pressed to say when it
is and
is not appropriate. E.g., presumably it is appropriate in image
>>: Dave Cooper
>: Robert Goldman
Summarizing:
* gendl (and gdl with it) uses monolithic-compile-bundle-op,
depends-on uiop, not asdf.
* gendl tries to use uiop from source to include it without asdf, but
asdf 3.3 broke that.
My understanding of the reason for this breakage is as follows:
* to e
On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:46, Sam Steingold wrote:
Hi,
When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and
37
of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).
I wonder if I am the only one unha
> On 16 Jan 2018, at 17:46, Sam Steingold wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
> possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 37
> of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).
>
> I wonder if I am
Hi,
When I start CLISP with the full linking set (i.e., including all
possible extensions), I have 63 packages in (list-all-packages), and 37
of them (more than half!) comes from asdf (22 ASDF/* and 15 UIOP/*).
I wonder if I am the only one unhappy about this.
In particular, has it ever been cons
