Dave Cooper david.coo...@genworks.com writes:
So I am using ASDF 2.31 which puts the symbol defsystem into
asdf/defsystem package instead of plain asdf package (Franz already
includes ASDF 2.31 in their patches for Allegro CL).
I have a little utility which emits the .asd files for me, with
: Dave Cooper
I have a little utility which emits the .asd files for me, with a form like:
`(asdf:defsystem ,(something-to-make-my-system-name) :description blah
… )
If you print that form while *package* is bound to something that uses ASDF,
(such as ASDF-USER, on 2.31), then it will omit
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
: Dave Cooper
I have a little utility which emits the .asd files for me, with a form like:
`(asdf:defsystem ,(something-to-make-my-system-name) :description blah
… )
If you print that form while *package* is bound to something that uses ASDF,
(such as
In ASDF1 and ASDF2, indeed, .asd files are read from
a temporary package ASDF~D that uses ASDF.
In ASDF3, we're using a permanent package ASDF-USER instead,
and usual hygiene rules apply.
So, if you define your own operation classes, you need to create a new
package?
You already needed to,
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
: Dave Cooper
I have a little utility which emits the .asd files for me, with a form
like:
`(asdf:defsystem ,(something-to-make-my-system-name) :description
blah
… )
If you print that form while *package* is bound to
I don't want it to omit the prefix. I want:
(asdf:defsystem ...)
(format t (asdf:defsystem ...) ...)
Does usual hygiene rules mean that I do or do not need any prefix on the
defsystem in
(defsystem ... )
You do NOT need the prefix, unless you've explicitly changed package
to one
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
You do NOT need the prefix, unless you've explicitly changed package
to one that doesn't :use :asdf.
Or unless you want SLIME auto-indentation to work.
Zach
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
Or you could fix SLIME's package guessing heuristics.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •ReflectionCybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Laziness is mother of Intelligence. Father unknown. [Rumor has it it's Greed.]
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Zach Beane x...@xach.com wrote:
Faré
I'm not seeing any difference in SLIME's indentation between:
(defsystem #:gdl-ent
:description Auto-generated asdf defsys from Genworks GDL cl-lite.
:author Genworks and Dave Cooper unless otherwise indicated
:serial t
:version 2013030200
:depends-on (:gdl-build)
:components
I think the confusion started at a time when we were, for some reason,
manually loading .asd files ourselves by calling (load ...), which
according to my understanding is not and has never been an intended use of
.asd files -- they are strictly to be considered as data files for use with
Dave Cooper david.coo...@genworks.com writes:
This is with no (in-package ...) form at the beginning.
In any case, it looks like as long as the .asd files are used as intended,
then no package prefix is needed on the (defsystem ...), and no (in-package
...) is needed at the top (when using
The upgrade test for ACL from 1.85 fails reliably with this error:
Warning: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #compile-op on
#cl-source-file asdf build asdf.
Warning: COMPILE-FILE failed while performing #compile-op on
#cl-source-file asdf build asdf.
TEST ABORTED:
As there were some fixes, running tests again. ASDF version 2.31.8Quicklisp version is shifted to 2013-02-17. SBCL results arrived already:http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-21.html Other will follow.
___
asdf-devel mailing list
I don't understand what could be going on. Of course, and especially
so when we're testing upgrades, there's plenty of pathname magic and
configuration switching going on. But I can't imagine what's at stake
to make it work for me and not for you. Are you using the latest
checkout from the master
04.03.2013, 05:49, Faré f...@tunes.org:
OK, so the results are massively positive, and the failures all known
and most of them already fixed upstream. I'll ping keithj again — he
fixed cl-sam already, but still hasn't fixed deoxybytes-systems. Apart
from that, the only system that looks like
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Anton Vodonosov avodono...@yandex.ru wrote:
04.03.2013, 05:49, Faré f...@tunes.org:
OK, so the results are massively positive, and the failures all known
and most of them already fixed upstream. I'll ping keithj again — he
fixed cl-sam already, but still hasn't
On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -8:56 PM, Dave Cooper wrote:
Hi Robert,
If you can outline for me the steps to do it, I can try this on ACL 8.2
and 9.0 on Windows and Linux, if you like...
I am just doing the following:
setting ASDF_TEST_LISPS to a list of the lisps I have installed (this
would be at
On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -8:08 PM, Faré wrote:
I don't understand what could be going on. Of course, and especially
so when we're testing upgrades, there's plenty of pathname magic and
configuration switching going on. But I can't imagine what's at stake
to make it work for me and not for you. Are you
The following seems to be the crux of the issue:
; Upgraded ASDF from version 1.85 to version 2.31.8
; Registering #system asdf
;;; Writing fasl file /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl
this should be in an implementation-specific subdirectory, but isn't.
Well, 1.85 doesn't have
Probably what we most care about is upgrading from the current bundled
version to the head and released versions in git.
Yes, and that's the first thing we test indeed when we run the upgrade test.
Is the test just to make sure that an upgrade works properly for people
who might have saved
20 matches
Mail list logo
