Note that I have been maintaining my variant of A-B-L as part of cl-launch, and upon noticing that resolve-symlinks had been removed, I immediately issued a new release 2.23 of cl-launch.
I for one would welcome A-B-L becoming part of ASDF, so I could have cl-launch just use that (after a transition period). I agree that logical pathnames are indeed broken as specified, and that since at least SBCL enforces the specification, they shouldn't be used. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods. -- Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love" 2009/9/9 Robert Goldman <[email protected]>: > james anderson wrote: >> hello; >> >> i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never >> got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again: >> >> what exactly fails (or is just inconsistent) in the respective >> logical pathname implementations to preclude accomplishing the same >> thing with logical pathnames? >> whatever that may be, why is it better to re-implement the >> functionality for asdf rather than to fix the problem? > > Two things rule out logical pathnames as a solution for this problem: > > 1. They don't actually solve the problem --- in order to get what you > want you'd still need to have logic that redirects the binary files to > different directories. I.e., we'd have to add logic to differentially > define logical pathnames for binaries depending on features of the lisp > implementation and then we'd have to add logic to methods for > output-files. Gary's A-B-L just fixes this with methods for > output-files. So it's a simpler solution and more portable. > > 2. Logical pathnames are defined in ANSI CL to use case-flattened > pathnames. That means they are an extremely poor fit for modern > case-sensitive file systems. Some number of existing ASDF systems would > break because their directory structures contain case-sensitive > pathnames. From the Hyperspec grammar for logical pathname namestrings > (section 19.3.1): > > "word---one or more uppercase letters, digits, and hyphens." > > As long as SBCL hews to the letter of the ANSI spec for logical > pathnames, I regard logical pathnames as useless in portable code. I > now use them only in code that, for one reason or another, will only run > in ACL. [Note that this is /not/ meant as a criticism of the SBCL policy.] > > > > > So Gary's existing solution is (a) more portable; (b) simpler; and (c) > less damaging to existing ASDF systems; (d) it's done and (e) it's > extensively tested in the wild. > > I think the only question is whether we should make A-B-L optional as > now (but distribute it with stock ASDF) or, as Attila suggests, > integrate it fully, but configure it so that it behaves as current stock > ASDF. > > Best, > R > > >> >> On 2009-09-09, at 14:39 , Robert Goldman wrote: >> >>> Gary King wrote: >>>> (cc'd to list) >>>> >>>> Damn. The function disappeared recently (by my hand). I didn't >>>> realize >>>> (obviously) that it was used. I'll fix. >>> Gary, >>> >>> Maybe this would be a good time to push A-B-L into the ASDF >>> repository? >>> I've always been in favor of this, acnyway, since it's such a >>> critical >>> extension. IMO it would be great if anyone who had ASDF could also >>> get >>> A-B-L with no more work than a call to asdf:oos. >>> >>> Best, >>> r >>> >>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:17 PM, Robert Goldman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I just updated, and now can't start up lisp because >>>>> asdf-binary-locations calls ASDF::RESOLVE-SYMLINKS which seems to >>>>> have >>>>> vanished from asdf.lisp. >>>>> >>>>> Any insight? _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
