On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > Robert P. Goldman wrote: >> The minimakefile help lists: >> >> archive alias for command make-and-publish-archive >> >> but make-and-publish-archive is not listed as a command in the help, nor >> in the makefile. Is this description out of date? >> The list of public commands is currently a list returned by function public-commands. I just updated it to include this function. This mechanism could be improved. (For instance, which commands are public could be based on package exported symbols.)
>> Question: can we do a long help for individual commands, like >> >> make help archive? >> ./tools/asdf-tools help archive or M-. after having loaded asdf-tools >> As an aside, I would say that if one is interested in making CL a >> serious scripting contender, some equivalent of perl's Getopt::Long >> library for command line parsing (perhaps Didier's Clon would fit the >> bill?), and pod inline documentation is going to be critical. >> Quicklisp has plenty of such libraries, including my own command-line-arguments and Didier's CLON. There are plenty more, but for historical reasons rooted in backward compatibility with the former Makefile, I'm not using any. >> I pushed a comment on the makefile to explain at the top how to get help. > > The flipside to my earlier argument about putting back the test > scripting using bash and make alone is > > "given the asdf builder scripts, what function does the makefile serve now?" > The Makefile serves the following purposes: * bootstrap asdf, with make all, aka make build/asdf.lisp * download libraries, with make ext, aka git submodule update * thin backward-compatible shim around ./tools/asdf-tools > What assistance is offered by having someone use > > make archive > > instead of simply > > asdf-builder archive ? > make archive will make sure build/asdf.lisp is updated before it invokes asdf-tools. > What benefit does the make shim provide? I suppose it chains together > dependencies, but given that the makefile shows hardly any use of the > filesystem to track the need (or lack thereof) of building, make seems > to me like just a barrier to the user's understanding of the function. > Yes, it's mostly useless. > For make test and for the file concatenation, make provides the ability > to do the core operations with no additional machinery. So those seem > good. But for the other functions, it just seems like make is adding a > cumbersome layer of indirection. > Yes, it's a layer of indirection. But it's simpler and shorter to write make archive than to write ./tools/asdf-tools archive —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org In a just society, it is shameful to be poor. In a corrupt society, it is shameful to be rich. — Confucius _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
