Just telling that it failed isn't very useful, especially when others can't reproduce (painful with old SBCL, very expensive with ACL).
Can you attach a full log of the failures? Does ACL work better with old version of the test suite? I remember that a lot of those tests were failing on clisp at least. PS: I see you were in Cambridge MA recently. Next time you are, contact me! [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped on you from a very great height — Terry Pratchett. 2010/1/27 Robert Goldman <[email protected]>: > 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
