Luís Oliveira <luismbo <at> gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Xristos Kalkanis <ccalca <at> essex.ac.uk> wrote: > > Is there a reason that asdf-install is > > "not as recommendable"? > [...] > > The latest cffi release does not install cleanly > > with asdf-install > > I guess that's why I wouldn't recommend it. It pulls way too many > dependencies, tries to compile every system in advance, most > developers don't use it themselves, etc. I agree that a > repository/system stable release is useful but I don't think > asdf-install is an adequate solution. > > In any case, by the time asdf-install fails, it has already downloaded > all of the dependencies required by CFFI, so it's somewhat usable.
My 2c is that if CFFI is no longer ASDF-INSTALLable then the previous version of CFFI should really be linked from the CLiki. This is the version that ASDF- INSTALL will use. Otherwise the installation of any package that depends on ASDF-INSTALL and CFFI is automatically broken. - Luke _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
