Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
Now I get :ASDF does not match 2.26.114. Is that to be expected?
OK, that was a message from cl-launch.
I both improved the message, and scaled back the ASDF requirement to 2.015,
with explicit loading of asdf-driver if old than that.
While I was at it, I had
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Zach Beane x...@xach.com wrote:
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
fare-matcher fails because FARE-UTILS does not designate any package.
Oops, I had removed xcvb-utils, but still needed fare-utils (previous
imported through fare-utils).
This affects weblocks and
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Zach Beane x...@xach.com wrote:
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
fare-matcher fails because FARE-UTILS does not designate any package.
Oops, I had removed xcvb-utils, but still needed fare-utils (previous
imported through
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Zach Beane x...@xach.com wrote:
By the way, this steady stream of oops, ooops, oops, oops, is causing
me a huge, huge, huge headache.
My apologies. I've been focusing so much on ASDF that I forgot to update
all the systems I maintain that indirectly depend on
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
The short life of asdf-utils is causing me a huge headache.
asdf-utils still exists. Now it's just a thin wrapper over asdf-driver.
I broke it briefly, thinking it had no clients (none showing in quicklisp);
Also, Quicklisp is just a subset of the CL code out
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
When will that work? Right now many things still fail with the most
recent updates of everything, e.g. fare-utils, rpm, cl-launch, exscribe,
etc.
I just fixed rpm, but apart from that, the other ones have already
been fixed yesterday at most.
Now I get :ASDF
Now I get :ASDF does not match 2.26.114. Is that to be expected?
OK, that was a message from cl-launch.
I both improved the message, and scaled back the ASDF requirement to 2.015,
with explicit loading of asdf-driver if old than that.
While I was at it, I had exscribe stop requiring cl-launch,
Now I don't get a package conflict, I get Your ASDF version is too old.
I'm using 2.26. Is taht really too old?
tldr: just update whichever libraries used to depend on xcvb-driver.
Long version:
That's message from xcvb-driver. I will make it clearer.
Yes, on the one hand, 2.26 is too old
When will that work? Right now many things still fail with the most
recent updates of everything, e.g. fare-utils, rpm, cl-launch, exscribe,
etc.
I just fixed rpm, but apart from that, the other ones have already
been fixed yesterday at most.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
Does it also fix the issue with the asdf-utils package name conflict?
Which way do you want the conflict resolved?
The current resolution is that asdf-utils.asd is
an empty system that depends on asdf-driver.asd,
Now I don't get a package conflict, I get Your
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
OK, so I've put in the archives/ directory of asdf a few tarballs. See:
http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/archives/
The driver is in asdf-driver-2.26.118.tar.gz, which has only the
general-purpose utilities.
Would you consider adding an URL like
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
OK, so I've put in the archives/ directory of asdf a few tarballs. See:
http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/archives/
Would you consider adding an URL like asdf-driver-latest.tgz that will
always refer to the latest version?
Done:
(defun link-archive ()
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Zach Beane x...@xach.com wrote:
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
OK, so I've put in the archives/ directory of asdf a few tarballs. See:
http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/archives/
Would you consider adding an URL like asdf-driver-latest.tgz that will
13 matches
Mail list logo
