On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote: > I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all > the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's > currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather > than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it should be. Patch > welcome. > > Note that I bumped the version from 1.375 to 1.500 then 1.501. This to > indicate that we're not using CVS anymore, that I've reached a > milestone towards my goal of an "ASDF 2" that I could push as a > replacement to ASDF. It passes the tests with SBCL. But the tests > could be extended to do more. > > Next, comes a similar revamp of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS configuration. > Or maybe a wholesale replacement of ABL with something that's simpler > and configured in a way similar to source-registry? What do YOU think?
I have an old copy of SBCL, 1.0.28, which I keep around (we pinned ourselves to that revision for a project I was working on), and I tried to run the test suite on this version of SBCL, 64-bit Mac. The test suite failed, and here are the last several lines of the output: ; compilation unit finished ; caught 2 STYLE-WARNING conditions ; printed 1 note ; /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.fasl written ; compilation finished in 0:00:07.450 Testuite failed: ASDF compiled with warningsbash-3.2$ I thought that this might be a spurious failure having to do with being too stringent about what constitutes an ASDF compilation failure, so I tried to run the test suite again (figuring a compiled version of asdf.lisp would now be available), but it failed identically. Is this expected? Should I ticket this? I will report on ACL tests shortly. Thanks, Robert _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
