>>> I'm asking for the following reasons: When ASDF was changed from 1.x to >>> 2.x, this caused some problems for RMCL, which I eventually resolved by >>> using Common Lisp's logical pathnames for the systems I maintain (primarily >>> Closer to MOP and ContextL). However, the current maintainers of ASDF have >>> an unjustified very low regard for logical pathnames, which causes a lot of >>> pain - basically, whenever a new version of a Common Lisp implementation >>> comes bundled with a new ASDF version, I have to deal with bugs in ASDF >>> that in one way or the other break my setup with logical pathnames. >>> >> The problems were fixed as soon as a suitable bug report was provided >> (i.e. not by you). > > I have submitted bug reports, and provided descriptions of my setup (I think, > actually, more than once). Have you entered them in the test suite for ASDF? > (Do you have a test suite for ASDF?) I find it hard to believe they don't > show up on your side if you continue testing that setup. (The bugs occur in > SBCL, Clozure and LispWorks, for example…) > No, you have (1) submitted "it hasn't been working for months" reports, rather than submit a bug report a few months earlier; (2) repeatedly failed to give detailed bug reports, so we can only guess what the failure is; (3) systematically failed to respond when I committed fixes (based on someone else's report) and subsequently inquired whether the fix worked for you. (4) been more and more abusive in your emails.
I have just spend quite a few hours adding test cases for logical-pathnames (my, are they confusing - see for instance this bug I filed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/980023 Definitely not something I'll recommend for anyone to try). I added a test file to our test-suite with various use cases forways to use logical-pathnames (yes, I know, I could have done so earlier; so could you. Why do I, who despises logical-pathnames and think they are a bad idea, have to support them, spend hours on the task, and get insulted for it?) I found that checkin 2.017.6 b7aa30f74a4f94908ca17fc82193f4f7b47912a6, designed to make the effect of loading asd files more consistent by binding *default-pathname-defaults* to the file's directory, interacted badly with logical-pathnames on most implementations. http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/953 After a fix of translate-logical-pathname'ing before to bind, it all works on CCL, but unhappily not on several other Lisps I've tried. There are therefore more bugs in ASDF's support for logical pathnames. I note that no user of logical-pathnames has reported any error for months. I apologize for being bad at supporting them, with bugs get fixing only in a matter of days. Of course, if you upgrade your support contract to Platinum, we'll give you fixes in hours. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org The best place to find a helping hand is at the end of your own arm. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
