Faré wrote: > Isn't it allowed because it's never clear what directory they are > relative to, considering that the user may have changed the getcwd() > arbitrarily between startup and asdf parsing the source-registry > configuration, which would cause "interesting" subtle bugs, that I > wanted to avoid — including security issues if a binary written in > Lisp ever loads systems at runtime and examines a carefully crafted > directory. > > I suppose there's a case for allowing relative names, making them > relative to the configuration file when in a configuration file > (though that's not a common use case at all), and relative to > *default-pathname-defaults* when in an environment string, leaving the > user full responsibility to avoid subtle bugs. I'm not the one to > convince anymore, though. Ask Robert. If he agrees with you, I'll > gladly help with the required modifications to ASDF.
Actually, this feature is already available, I believe, through the :HERE directive in the configuration language. This was something we added for the case that I found common, where there would be a project directory tree, with all the required code in subdirectories, and a master configuration file at the root.* Have a look at that and see if it does what you want. Cheers, r * In practice, we create these trees by checking a project out from svn. We'd have all the required libraries, in stable versions, included as svn externals. _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net https://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
