I get 12 warnings with "System definition file contains definition for system . Please only define and secondary systems with a name starting with in that file." while loading a single project.
How do I disable these warnings? If we are to update ASDF in SBCL I want to make the asdf.lisp version bundled with SBCL to have them disabled by default. And if some future version of ASDF stops loading any of the 12 libraries, then I just won't update SBCL to that ASDF version. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:22 AM Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Stas Boukarev <stass...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 3.3.0 issues a barrage of new warnings about something it has decided is > > uncouth now. > > > On what systems is it issuing warnings? Any free software that we can > patch? > > Without specific warnings coming from specific libraries, it's hard to > tell what can be fixed, what cannot, what is an actual problem with > the code you're using, what is possibly a problem about ASDF itself, > etc. > > Odds are, the something had been decided as uncouth long ago, and ASDF > just lacked the means to warn you about it. > > > I really have no wish to stare at these warnings coming from third party > > libraries, especially since they're never going to be fixed. > > Is the old behavior posing problems? Is the old behavior going away soon? > > > Yes, some old behavior is posing problem and has for years. Sometimes > the old behavior has already gone away and/or is precariously emulated > in slightly incompatible ways using the newer better interface. > Sometimes we really want to get away from a really bad interface that > has been deprecated for years (e.g. run-shell-command, which is a > security liability in addition to been challenged with usability). > Sometimes a recent refactoring made some operation non-sensical (e.g. > operation-on-warnings) and/or not so useful (e.g. require-system), or > a really bad interface to the system (system-registered-p). > > Depending on the interfaces, the old behavior may go away within two > year, especially where supporting it is problematic and/or the > interface is bogus and misleading and not properly doing what it was > once advertised to be used for. Well, whoever is maintainer then will > probably do something conservative that preserves compatibility (with > some kind of warning) wherever it isn't an encouragement to writing > nonsensical code. > > > This is why I don't update ASDF, I don't want to change anything in my > code > > because of a new version. > > Last I heard, janderson was using his own slightly forked ASDF 1, and > some russians had forked ASDF 2. > > On the other hand, some programs depend on a recent ASDF, such as > IOlib or CFFI, or scripts that depend on a fixes run-program or on its > younger sibling launch-program, especially so on SBCL/Windows. > > There is no pleasing everyone, but there's going forward. SBCL also > sometimes deprecates some old interfaces, and issues warnings to those > who use them. > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org > Every four seconds a woman has a baby. > Our problem is to find this woman and stop her. >