On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > Unfortunately, the build went south for me at the first introduction of the > precompilation into the build, so stable never happened for me. > Apologies again for all the trouble.
> TBH, I would suggest the building happen outside the ASDF repository > entirely. Scripting isn't part of the ASDF objective, so I think having a > scripting engine that one installs separately would make a lot of sense. The > ASDF build tools are like bundling building of bash together with the"make" > tool's build and maintenance. > I'm thinking about it, in case I go back to hacking build and test tools for CL. That was the XCVB model, BTW. But at this time, I suppose we can declare XCVB dead. ASDF improved enough that the future will be either an ASDF4, or something completely different and general purpose like Bazel. > That said, even if the build tools were restructured, I wouldn't use them. > They have been too rickety for me. They have failed one too many times, and > I'm not going back. > > I am also unwilling to learn a new scripting framework, especially one under > active development. > > Sorry, but she'll scripting for me isn't broken enough for me to enter into > the project of developing a new alternative to perl and python. My active > research is in other fields. I'd be interested to see what you all come up > with, but right now I have other priorities. > Well, it's pretty stable this days and not "under actively development" anymore, but point taken. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Pick the fight that if you win it will make every other fight easier to win. — Tarren Bragdon
