Faré wrote: >>> I saw that. This doesn't help when asdf is in the source-registry, >>> though (which is the recommended way of having an asdf upgrade: "just" >>> having its source in the source-registry, e.g. in ~/common-lisp/asdf/) >> Hm. And we have to have the asdf *tree* in the source-registry instead >> of only having the asdf *directory* in there because of the separation >> of uiop.asd and asdf.asd. >> >> Is there some reason we can't move uiop.asd up to a position next to >> asdf.asd? >> >> That seems like a much more pleasant solution than restructuring the >> repo to make the test and asdf source directories siblings instead of >> child/parent. >> > The reason is to make it easier to package uiop in a separate tarball, > as used by e.g. quicklisp. > > If we didn't have to care for Windows, I'd have suggested a symlink in > the top directory, or a link farm directory somewhere. But we do have > to support Windows, don't we? What does git do with symlinks on > Windows? Are .lnk files supported on all Windows implementations? Meh. > Another trick might have been a trampoline uiop.asd that just calls > (asdf::load-asd (subpathname *load-pathname* "uiop/uiop.asd")) or > maybe just (load ...) since the context was already setup by whichever > load-asd got us there (hopefully). Or we could play a game, with > asdf-driver.asd being in the top directory and doing the load-asd > trick, whereas uiop remains invisible by default. Sigh. > > That said, we could also move the defsystem files to a defsystem/ > subdirectory, making the systems siblings, and being happy that way.
So defsystem/ would contain asdf.asd, pointing to files in ../ and uiop.asd pointing to files in ../uiop/ ? Or would we move the source files, as well? > > If you're going to move files, merging branches will be "interesting". > Best done by merging branches with pre-move master, then merging the > move step, then merging what follows. I promise not to do any big reorganization without extensive checking! I think we can dodge this problem for a start, though. If one is doing the build process, and using the makefile, presumably one is sophisticated enough *not* to put the ASDF source tree into your default source registry. If you must do that, well, that's what the ASDF_DEVEL_SOURCE_REGISTRY is for: you must use it to specify for yourself a well-behaved source registry for development of ASDF. [I think part of the reason this doesn't bother me (and part of the reason I haven't liked the conf.d approach to setting things up) is that I have *many* different source registry configurations, for different projects that use different libraries and even different versions of the same library. I have never had a single, universal Lisp development environment, and don't expect that I ever will.] If we can dodge this for now, we can postpone dealing with it until we have closed out the current topic branches. Cheers, r _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
