> The shims idea is interesting, but isn't it a lot of trouble to make and
> maintain a shim (which has to somehow indicate where to find the source files
> for the library), compared to forking a system?
+1
there's already the sharplispers group for taking over unmaintained
systems (not to be
On 19 Feb 2019, at 1:18, 73budden wrote:
Hi!
Every time I read "asdf", I feel a pain. I've read that there is an
attempt to gain resources to improve asdf. I have a sort of plan.
1. Shims. Recent tightening of rules for system definitions is ok, but
there are old systems with no maintainers.
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
Yes, these are good points, and that's why I have pushed an update to
the manual. Please have a look at the "The defsystem grammar" ASDF
manual page here:
https://www.common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/The-defsystem-grammar.html#The-defsystem-grammar
Only the first four entries have changed.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 4:08 PM Robert Goldman wrote:
> It's actually there, at least if you are looking for it.
In my own defense: I did look for it and I did find that text, but
didn't find it helpful. It says the name of a system is conventionally
lowercase -- this is not the same as saying
