Hey, fwiw, to get a version you get a first token from (lisp-implementation-version):
[2]> (lisp-implementation-version) "2.49+ (2010-07-17) (built 3664370621) (memory 3664370857)" Best regards, Daniel Robert Goldman writes: > 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. -- Daniel Kochmański ;; aka jackdaniel | Poznań, Poland TurtleWare - Daniel Kochmański | www.turtleware.eu "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
