On 3/3/16 Mar 3 -10:28 AM, Luís Oliveira wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: >> I fear that will not do what you want: >> >>> (asdf:version-satisfies "3.1.2.rc" "3.1.2") >> NIL >> >> The RC there for some reason is breaking the match: >> >> R> (asdf:version-satisfies "3.1.2" "3.1.2") >> T >> >> This smells to me like a bug in ASDF:VERSION-SATISFIES, but we won't be >> able to get a fix into ASDF in time to let this work for QL + CFFI. > > Using "999" or something like that might be distinguishing enough that > we don't need a suffix. Allowing suffixes of some sort sounds useful, > but we don't need it. > > (Meanwhile, I've read your other replies.) > > (defmethod asdf:version-satisfies ((c (eql (asdf:find-system :cffi))) > version) > (declare (ignore version)) > (or (null (asdf:component-version c)) > (call-next-method))) > > How unwise is this? :-)
Actually, that sounds entirely reasonable. I'm not sure the IGNORE will work everywhere: you might change it to IGNORABLE. And add a comment! ;-) >> Is there some reason you can't just bump x.y.z to x.y.z.xx :version in >> your cffi.asd file and push that? > > I don't like committing version bumps, so CFFI's current setup creates > a tag and sets the system version on the release tarball only. >
