The cmucl maintainer convinced me that #+cmucl was the right thing, at
least going forward. If there are any #+cmu left, it's a mistake — please
fix if you find it.
Yes it is known that old cmucl versions have bugs that break some ASDF
functionality, that I reported, and most of which were fixed (except those
having to do with upgrading code with CLOS).
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 12:58 Elias Pipping <pipping.el...@icloud.com> wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> a quick and superficial analysis suggests that the :cmu feature has been
> defined for longer (probably forever) and :cmucl is relatively new(*), yet
> ASDF appears to use both and mix them rather arbitrarily. Assuming that the
> check for :cmucl is not meant to rule out old versions of cmucl, I think it
> would make sense to stick to one.
>
> While `make test` will currently fail right away with cmucl 20b because of
> the missing :cmucl feature, transforming all the occurrences of the :cmucl
> feature into :cmu still leaves two tests failing. And with
> 20c and 20d (which are not old at all and do define :cmucl), 5 tests will
> still be failing (and have been
> for quite some time). Only the very recent releases 20e, 20f, and 21a pass
> all tests.
>
> Is this known? Is it impossible to support old versions of cmucl? I did
> find that cmucl-20a at least does not expose (unix:unix-getenv) which ASDF
> puts to use but I cannot judge if there are ways to work around that.
>
> So to summary what I’d like to ask:
> - Is it known that tests fail on cmucl <20e?
> - What versions of cmucl is ASDF meant to support?
> - Should I turn checks for the :cmucl feature into ones for :cmu?
>
>
> Elias
>
> (*) in a shell,
>
> for v in 19a 20{a,b,c,d,e,f} 21a; do echo -n cmucl-$v:; cmucl-$v -eval
> '(write-line #+cmucl "yes" #-cmucl "no")' -eval '(quit)'; done
>
> prints:
>
> cmucl-19a:no
> cmucl-20a:no
> cmucl-20b:no
> cmucl-20c:yes
> cmucl-20d:yes
> cmucl-20e:yes
> cmucl-20f:yes
> cmucl-21a:yes
>
>
>
