Tim, as long as I'm stepping on land mines here's one more to round out the day:
As I mentioned before, I'm in the process of figuring out how to make asdf handle pamphlet files. Of course, this basically means taking over as much of the build logic as possible, and one of the questions that arises is where to stick .o or .fasl files (the binary results of a lisp compile-file). I know Axiom has a directory setup for intermediate files, and I'm going to try to make sense of that and teach asdf to respect it, but I wanted to ask you specifically abou the whole mnt/linux/... storage of the final results. There is an asdf extension called asdf-binary-locations http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-containers/asdf-binary-locations/ I'm thinking this might come in handy for the Axiom build, since we wind up stuffing our binaries in different directories from the source files. It is configurable according to the documentation, but also has defaults. According to this post: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/72296ec04e5cb356/8d98a545b85c03f6 this scheme is used to keep things straight: root/compiler-name-version-os-arch/path/to/file/foo.fasl This seems to be a variation on what we have with the mnt setup. My question - is the mnt structure currently in place required/hard coded/have overwhelming logic behind it? I sort of like the compiler-name-version-os-arch directory namimg scheme, as it should make it trivially simple to compile Axiom for multiple lisps on one machine (even multiple versions of the same lisp!) and let ASDF keep everything straight. Is that binary structure something I shouldn't be monkeying with? Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
