On 9/1/16 Sep 1 -9:17 AM, Elias Pipping wrote: > >> On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:28, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sam Steingold (sds) probed me on some old bugs, which led me to waste >> a day debugging issues on and with CLISP. >> >> First I reproduced CLISP bug 677, figured out what CLISP was doing >> wrong (incorrect merging of logical pathnames in compile-file), and >> implemented a workaround (physicalize everything I can, trust >> compile-file's return value over my :output-file argument): >> https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/bugs/677/ >> >> Then, I found a cleaner fix to the issue with DIRECTORY wanting "*" >> rather than "*.*" as the match-all pattern on CLISP and GCL. > > Dear Faré, > > with 3.1.7.7, clisp-2.49 and clisp-git(*) passed test-logical-pathname.script > for me. > With 3.1.7.8, clisp-git continues to pass test-logical-pathname.script for > me, but clisp-2.49 now fails. > > As far as I can tell, that’s because previously part of the test was disabled > for clisp and is now unconditionally enabled. > > I just want to make sure that this was intentional and known. I don’t know if > functionality probed in the relevant part of the tests is crucial in order > for ASDF to function but this might mean that clisp 2.49 can no longer be > supported. If so, I would drop it from the list of platforms I’m testing with.
Even worse, AFAICT clisp does not make its version number available to the lisp context. There's a SYSTEM::VERSION, but: [2]> (system::version) (20080430) which doesn't say "2.49" to me :-( I'm not sure what to do about this, since clisp seems to have lost the ability to make releases. I'm reluctant to start building clisp from source -- on three different platforms yet -- just to test it. Especially if this isn't relevant to what clisp users are actually getting. If you're in touch with Sam, Faré, maybe you could encourage him to make a release. Indeed, I'm prepared to threaten to back out fixes that work on clisp from source, and break release clisp. Or at least re-disable the clisp tests. I don't think it should be the ASDF maintainer's job to track every lisp implementation from source.
