On 2010-02-02, at 18:17 , Faré wrote: > I agree with James that a bootstrapped asdf would be elegant. > Unhappily it wouldn't be practical. asdf being only one file is very > useful for many reasons.
please explain. > It being one directory would not be too bad, > but still one file is better. pjb has a nice suggestion that we could > split it in many files and have some build tool concatenate those > files for distribution. That would work for me, but nowhere near at > the top of my todo list. > > As pjb says, my main concerns are about > >> (a) Upgradability > Making asdf self-upgradable, so we no more have the horror of having > to deal with antique prepackaged asdf's. the only things with notes about upgradability were the fmakunbound and the two #+ecl adds. together about a dozen lines. > >> (b) Site and user configuration > Minimizing setup complexity for non-experts. > >> (c) Asdf binary locations / asdf output locations > ABL was already merged into ASDF by gwking. While I think it was a > generally good move, it fails (b), and I think can and should be > redone better. then, once asdf is configurable, is there any reason to not take abl out of the core? _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
