On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 02:10 -0500, Faré wrote: > On 19 November 2010 16:20, Krzysztof Drewniak <krzysdrewn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2- It's not clear that anyone would use it. What problem are you solving? > >> How does it help? > >> > > If solves the problem of not having a standard way to "install" a common > > lisp library. See my other reply for details. > > > There is nothing whatsoever to install in a CL library. > FASLs? They vary from implementation to implementation, > and even in a given implementation, depending on > OPTIMIZE settings, *features* and possibly more > (code coverage, grovelling, some lisp-in-lisp compilation > for e.g. continuations, etc.) > > And what the hell do you configuration settings correspond to? > Yet another layer of bureaucracy between the user and > the above-mentionned settings and features? > > > As fetching dependencies is clearly not in scope for asdf, dependencies > > will be checked to see if they are loadable in the beginning of > > install-op, and if they are not present, a helpful error is signalled. > > > What when a dependency is compiled with a different settings, entailing > different semantics for the final "library"? > > >> 4- How do you distinguish between fasls compiled with different options. > >> > > If config.asdf is modified, fasls are recompiled. If two different > > source trees of the same system are installed, they will vertanly not be > > installed in the same place, thuse distinguishing the fasls. > > > That's not the question asked. How do you make sure there is no unwanted > sharing between two "versions" of the fasls for a same library as installed > in the same tree? > > > Also, if you are using different "trees" of libraries, either use > > different :registry files, or don't use these operations. > > > That's not the question asked. If you have different trees, > you don't need to distinguish configurations. > But usually you don't. > > Or what the hell are your "configurations" useful for? > > > To clarify something in advance, config-get does NOT require you to have > > used install-op, you could have done the installation manually. > > > Your whole proposal sounds like more bureaucracy that doesn't actually > help anyone get anything done but adds more work for everyone. > I say emphatically NO to any of it. > > Please provide a use case — we'll tell you how to do without it. > > There are ways that a build system could benefit from understanding > multiple "configurations" of a same tree, but ASDF will never ever > possibly do that, since that would require major refactoring and > breaking backward compatibility. If you're interested in such things, > consider hacking XCVB instead. > > [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] > Big Business has to *sell* the Vietnam War to you. Big Government can just > draft your ass and ship you overseas under threat of imprisonment and/or > death. Now, which one is better again? — r...@netdoor.com
Never mind. asdf-install already solved most of the problem. -- X-Real-Email-With-Antispam: krzysdrewniak at gmail dot com pgp key on keyserver.ubuntu.com 94F02AE8
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
