> Should we see about making sure we have a working ASDF on ACL for 3.1.6? > Yes of course. If we were quick, we'd manage to release just before ACL is finalized so they can ship with it. Not sure we're that quick.
> I'm wondering if we should back out the change to system pathnames for > ticket 1485276. Is that a bug fix, so ok to shove out in 3.1.6, or is > it a new feature, which might better be held for 3.2? > It's between the two. It's also backward compatible with systems that don't use :pathname for their defsystem. Now 1- this is the case of all 6 systems in Quicklisp that use package-inferred-system 2- there is no imaginable reason why anyone would currently use :pathname in a package-inferred-system, since it had so far no effect whatsoever NB: OK, technically, if you combine being a package-inferred-system with having a traditional list of :components, then it did affect the pathname of the components, but no one does that, and it's perverse anyway because it leads to files having two different names — only ASDF itself kind of puns file names this way, for the sake of bootstrapping, and it doesn't use :pathname. I'd keep that "fix" in 3.1.6, and keep disrecommending its use without a :depends-on ((:version "asdf" "3.1.6")). > I'll see how minimakefile behaves for me and get back to you... > Thanks a lot! —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org — Question authority! — Yeah, says who?
