On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -8:08 PM, Faré wrote: > I don't understand what could be going on. Of course, and especially > so when we're testing upgrades, there's plenty of pathname magic and > configuration switching going on. But I can't imagine what's at stake > to make it work for me and not for you. Are you using the latest > checkout from the master branch, as opposed to the release branch? > > Did you try to make mrproper and/or git clean -xfd to remove any > parasite files from your checkout?
Yes, and I did a git diff to check. The following seems to be the crux of the issue: ; Upgraded ASDF from version 1.85 to version 2.31.8 ; Registering #<system "asdf"> ;;; Writing fasl file /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl this should be in an implementation-specific subdirectory, but isn't. Is there any chance this could be because I am not running bash? Or somehow something is briefly turning off the output-redirection? I'll try to pry into this tomorrow. best, r > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org > Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology: > There's always one more bug. > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: >> On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -5:38 PM, Faré wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: >>>> The upgrade test for ACL from 1.85 fails reliably with this error: >>>> >>>> Warning: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #<compile-op > on >>>> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">. >>>> Warning: COMPILE-FILE failed while performing #<compile-op > on >>>> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">. >>>> TEST ABORTED: >>>> #P"/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-8.2m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl" >>>> does not exist, cannot load >>> [...] >>>> Script failed >>>> upgrade FAILED for allegromodern from 1.85 using method >>>> 'load-asdf-lisp'load-asdf-system >>>> >>>> Interestingly, when I paste the replication string into bash: >>>> >>>> ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS="1.85" >>>> ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_METHODS="'load-asdf-lisp'load-asdf-system" >>>> ./test/run-tests.sh -u allegromodern >>>> >>>> this works fine. >>>> >>>> So this only fails for me when running in the context of make.... >>>> >>> Works for me, at least with Allegro 9.0: >>> >>> make u l=allegro ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85 >>> make u l=allegromodern ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85 >> >> I'm stumped. It fails for me on Allegro 9.0 just as with 8.2 >> >> Note that this happens for me in the context of 'make test-all' >> >> >> make u l=allegromodern ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85 >> >> also fails... >> >> Somehow the build is not working: >> >> rpg% ls >> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-9.0m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl >> ls: cannot access >> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-9.0m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl: >> No such file or directory >> >> For some reason, I have no asdf.fasl there, but I *do* have an asdf.lisp... >> >> I see this, which indicates that the fasl is being written in the wrong >> location: >> >> ; Registering #<system "asdf"> >> ;;; Writing fasl file /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl >> ;;; Fasl write complete >> Warning: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #<compile-op > on >> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">. >> Warning: COMPILE-FILE failed while performing #<compile-op > on >> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">. >> >> And that's the file, alright: >> >> pg% head build/asdf.fasl >> ?z??#<<AcL>> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.lisp by rpg on >> rpgoldman-3.local at 2013-03-03T19:40:46+06\ >> using 9.0 [64-bit Mac OS X (Intel)] (Feb 26, 2013 9:53)\ >> fasl version = 63\ >> runtime version = 33\ >> for non-smp lisps; #+8-bit-specific code; #+16-bit-specific code\ >> Optimization settings at wfasl time:\ >> ((safety 3) (space 1) (speed 2) (compilation-speed 1) (debug 2))\ >> >> So is there something going awry in the build process? >> >> Best, >> r >> >> >>> >>> I can't try allegro 8.2, because my license has expired, and Franz >>> only offers one until January 31st 2013, and I don't feel like >>> cheating on the system date: >>> http://www.franz.com/products/express/ >>> >>> Is it a case of confusion whereby we changed the way the >>> implementation identifier is computed, and asdf creates the fasl in >>> one directory but somehow looks for it in another? >>> >>> What is the command that makes it fail, already? >>> >>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• >>> http://fare.tunes.org >>> The kingly office is entitled to no respect. It was originally procured by >>> the >>> highwayman's methods; it remains a perpetuated crime, can never be anything >>> but >>> the symbol of a crime. It is no more entitled to respect than is the flag of >>> a pirate. — Mark Twain >>> >> _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel