I see that 21c contains 3.3.0
Since I only test on the latest CMUCL, there is no reason for me to test
upgrades from earlier versions. I will fix the test scripts; that will
likely make the problem go away (it does at least on my Mac).
Note that this means that we can't guarantee what happens if a user
tries to load a new ASDF into an older revision of CMUCL. That's
nothing new, though! We have never really been able to test more than
the latest version of the lisp implementations (and sometimes not
that!).
Best,
Robert
On 18 Feb 2019, at 16:12, Raymond Toy wrote:
How critical is being able to upgrade? Cmucl snapshots usually
provide the
very latest version of asdf.
Fare has reported the issues with cmucl's pcl and I've just been
really
lazy to dig into the hairy pcl code.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:16 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info>
wrote:
On 14 Feb 2019, at 4:55, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
13.02.2019, 01:44, "Robert Goldman" rpgold...@sift.info:
On a happier note, both (Home)brew and Ubuntu have newish versions of
clisp which, AFAICT, pass all the ASDF tests. Yay!
What newish clisp it is? I have been hoping clips will release somem
"refreshment" release, maybe just the same code as the previous
release but
new ASDF. From time to time are check the mailing list and project
page -
no news.
Is that OS package maintainers did anything on the package level?
I think it's the packaging managers, not the clisp maintainers who
did
this.
On my Mac, with Homebrew, the version is:
/usr/local/Cellar/clisp/2.49_2 (64 files, 16.2MB)
According to GitHub, it was last updated 20 days ago. I don't really
know
how up-to-date it is with the clisp repo versus the ancient zip file.
On my Ubuntu Box, I have a package whose version is listed as
1:2.49.20170913-4build1. I don't know how to tell what that
corresponds
to in terms of the clisp source repo.
Best,
R
--
Ray
