On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote: > > On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote: > >> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: >>> [...] >> >> Question: are we going to create a logical pathname translation for >> just the system sources? Or should we create also something like >> >> CL-PPCRE;FASLS;*.*.* > > if asdf decides to befried logical pathnames, it should allow the > system to define its own mapping. > >> >> in addition? This seems a little tricky, since it requires that we >> hook >> into the output name rewriting logic, but probably is The Right Thing. > > i had understood that the name rewriting logic is disabled for > logical pathnames. > which is as it should be.
Clarification: the name-rewriting logic would still be disabled for logical pathnames. What I was suggesting was that <SYSTEM-NAME>:FASL; should be a logical pathname that would point to the location where <SYSTEM-NAME>'s (direct) fasls would be written by Faré's name rewriting. I.e., this would be a way for the system to find its own fasls reliably, no matter what the output name rewriting does. Is that more clear? thanks, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
