On 2009-09-09, at 17:54 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> james anderson wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 2. Logical pathnames are defined in ANSI CL to use case-flattened
>>> pathnames. That means they are an extremely poor fit for modern
>>> case-sensitive file systems. Some number of existing ASDF systems
>>> w
james anderson wrote:
> On 2009-09-09, at 16:27 , Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> james anderson wrote:
>>> hello;
>>>
>>> i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never
>>> got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again:
>>>
>>> what exactly fails (or is just inconsisten
On 2009-09-09, at 16:27 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> james anderson wrote:
>> hello;
>>
>> i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never
>> got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again:
>>
>> what exactly fails (or is just inconsistent) in the respective
>> logical
Note that I have been maintaining my variant of A-B-L as part of cl-launch,
and upon noticing that resolve-symlinks had been removed, I immediately
issued a new release 2.23 of cl-launch.
I for one would welcome A-B-L becoming part of ASDF, so I could have
cl-launch just use that (after a transiti
james anderson wrote:
> hello;
>
> i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never
> got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again:
>
> what exactly fails (or is just inconsistent) in the respective
> logical pathname implementations to preclude accomplishing th
Attila Lendvai wrote:
>> Maybe this would be a good time to push A-B-L into the ASDF repository?
>> I've always been in favor of this, acnyway, since it's such a critical
>> extension. IMO it would be great if anyone who had ASDF could also get
>> A-B-L with no more work than a call to asdf:oos.
> Maybe this would be a good time to push A-B-L into the ASDF repository?
> I've always been in favor of this, acnyway, since it's such a critical
> extension. IMO it would be great if anyone who had ASDF could also get
> A-B-L with no more work than a call to asdf:oos.
why with an asdf:oos? why
hello;
i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never
got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again:
what exactly fails (or is just inconsistent) in the respective
logical pathname implementations to preclude accomplishing the same
thing with logical pathname
Gary King wrote:
> (cc'd to list)
>
> Damn. The function disappeared recently (by my hand). I didn't realize
> (obviously) that it was used. I'll fix.
Gary,
Maybe this would be a good time to push A-B-L into the ASDF repository?
I've always been in favor of this, acnyway, since it's such a crit
(cc'd to list)
Damn. The function disappeared recently (by my hand). I didn't realize
(obviously) that it was used. I'll fix.
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:17 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> I just updated, and now can't start up lisp because
> asdf-binary-locations calls ASDF::RESOLVE-SYMLINKS which seem
10 matches
Mail list logo
