On 9/1/16 Sep 1 -2:16 PM, Daniel Kochmański wrote: > 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)"
Thanks! For some reason, I missed that in (apropos '#:version) but I see that now. > > 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. > >
