| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Stelian Ionescu wrote: |
| 2 |
> That command upgrades the metadata format to the most recent because |
| 3 |
> upstream uses a very old version of subversion. |
| 4 |
I am sorry. You are right. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why do we need a modern format of the stuff inside .svn directories? To my |
| 7 |
knowledge, some information from .svn is used to produce the greating line |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Welcome to Clozure Common Lisp Version 1.9-r15769M (LinuxX8664)! |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Does this fail with the very old format? Is the information from .svn used |
| 12 |
for something else? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Another question. asdf and uiop are used together; installed from the same |
| 15 |
tarball; cannot be installed separately (asdf PDEPENDs on uiop, uiop |
| 16 |
RDEPENDs on asdf). What's the advantage of having two separate packages? |
| 17 |
Why not install both subsets of files from the asdf ebuild? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
About testing asdf. test/run-tests.sh works fine inside the source tree. |
| 20 |
Not all files are installed by the asdf and uiop ebuilds; they are |
| 21 |
installed into different places. Simple-minded attempts to tune |
| 22 |
*asdf-directory*, *uiop-directory*, *build-directory* etc. in |
| 23 |
script-support.lisp fail because directory structures are too dissimilar |
| 24 |
(contrib/debug.lisp is a simlink to ../uiop/contrib/debug.lisp, etc.). So, |
| 25 |
I cannot test the installed stuff using run-tests.sh (inside the asdf |
| 26 |
source tree, all tests succeed for sbcl, cmucl, clisp, ccl, ecl). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Some observations: |
| 29 |
1. In sbcl and cmucl, asdf is already loaded (the system init files, I |
| 30 |
suppose) |
| 31 |
2. In ccl, ecl I can load it by (require :asdf) |
| 32 |
3. In all these 4 cases (require :uiop) works |
| 33 |
4. In clisp (require "asdf") fails (this is the form suggested by the asdf |
| 34 |
documentation). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
By the way, I've just added the doc USE flag to the asdf ebuild. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
What do common-lisp users expect to have? I mean, are all necessary asdf |
| 39 |
and uiop files installed? Are they installed into the most natural |
| 40 |
locations? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
It seems to me that the stuff pmasked "for testing" is not being tested at |
| 43 |
all. The only way is to unmask it; there are many ~arch users who will |
| 44 |
report bugs. So, let's say we plan to unmask all this stuff, say, on May |
| 45 |
1. If anybody will report problems before this date, excellent! If not - |
| 46 |
the users will have to find these problems the hard way. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Andrey |
Archives