Unfortunately, this patch doesn't seem to work. Maybe it interferes
with
condition handlers? At any rate, after I insert it into
script-support.lisp I now get two /new/ test failures in
package-inferred-system-test.script and
test-defsystem-depends-on.script. I get a message that
|Top level in: #<process TOP-LEVEL>. ECL unexpectedly landed in the
top
level prompt. Script aborted. Using ecl,
package-inferred-system-test.script failed |
...and one like it for the other test. So there were some failures
there
that were correctly caught before that are no longer.
On 31 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
Yes, the Ubuntu package definitely should be updated to version
16.1.3
which fixes the issue. But the ECL developers can't run to the
maintainer of the ECL package of every linux distribution and ask
them
to upgrade their package each time they make a new release. And
even if
they could, the package maintainers probably wouldn't do it,
since some
other package might depend on an older ECL version.
For the moment, the best solution I can offer you for your
problem is a
dirty hack to prevent older ECL versions from entering the
interactive REPL:
diff --git a/test/script-support.lisp b/test/script-support.lisp
index 86b6c1f2..7f72488a 100644
--- a/test/script-support.lisp
+++ b/test/script-support.lisp
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ Some constraints:
(defun ensure-directories-exist (path)
#+genera (fs:create-directories-recursively (pathname path))))
+;; Dirty hack to prevent buggy ECL versions from landing in the
top
level prompt when they shouldn't
+#+ecl (when (and (string<= (lisp-implementation-version)
"16.1.2")
+ (not *debug-asdf*))
+ (setq si:*tpl-prompt-hook*
+ #'(lambda ()
+ (format *error-output* "ECL unexpectedly landed in
the top level prompt. Script aborted.~%")
+ (exit-lisp 1))))
+
;;; Survival utilities
(defun asym (name &optional package errorp)
(let* ((pname (or package :asdf))
Of course since this is only a workaround to prevent the tests
from
stopping, the tests in which ECL would stop without the
workaround will
fail on ECL versions <= 16.1.2.
Am 31.08.2018 um 17:54 schrieb Robert Goldman:
On 31 Aug 2018, at 10:35, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
This is most likely a bug in ECL. I recommend trying out a
newer
version
of ecl (16.1.3 or the current develop branch from the git
repository).
I see your point, but have two comments:
1.
If this really /is/ an ECL bug, then shouldn't the Ubuntu
package be
updated and fixed? ASDF is supposed to work on the ECL that
users
will have, not only on the one that developers have.
2.
I don't see a way to get a new ECL except by pulling from
Gitlab and
building. I do not have the time to run around building all
available lisp implementations from source (and, again, ASDF
should
work on the versions of the implementations that users
actually
have, which means the ones provided by the packaging systems
on the
platforms). I build only SBCL, because that's an
implementation I
build anyway, for my work needs. Faré had the energy to play
with
all the different implementations in a substantial way, but I
do
not.
So if the released version of an implementation is broken, I
will simply
regard that implementation as broken. If the /released
version/
of an
implementation is broken for long enough (I'm looking at you,
clisp), it
will become unsupported by ASDF. Unsupported means "patches
will be
accepted, but I will no longer run the tests, and test
failure on an
unsupported implementation will not be a reason to hold up an
ASDF release."
Note that at the moment /all/ implementations are essentially
unsupported on Windows, since I have lost my Windows VM, and
even if I
got it back, I would have no way to develop on Windows. If
you are a
Windows user and this bothers you, I would be happy to
support
you in
setting up a test environment, and even more happy to help
you
learn to
patch ASDF. But even someone who doesn't want to patch ASDF,
but who
would be willing to run the test suite (or help figure out
how
it could
be run through, e.g., Travis), would be a great help.
Am 30.08.2018 um 21:51 schrieb Robert Goldman:
I'm experimenting with your changes now but, for some reason
that I
don't understand, when I run the tests as |make l=ecl|
interactively on
Ubuntu (using the Ubuntu ECL package |16.1.2-3|), signals are
throwing
me into the interactive debugger, instead of being caught. I
have no
idea why this started happening, because I used to be able to
run ECL
successfully, and I don't believe I have changed the package
(although
Ubuntu might have upgraded it).
Actually /usr/bin/ecl is crashing with SIGABRT when running
programs,
apparently, on my Ubuntu box. (|SIGABRT in
si_run_program()|).
I'll try
uninstalling and reinstalling ECL in the hopes that fixes
this, but
unless I get some help, I will not be able to continue
testing
ASDF on
ECL on Linux.
On 30 Aug 2018, at 13:22, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
No, I don't think so. The sockets module has been part of ECL
since
version 0.9f from 2005. Please note, that this test can fail
anyway if
ECL is built without support for the respective module (be it
:rt or
:sockets). The change only prevents it from failing on a
default
build
configuration.
Am 30.08.2018 um 19:53 schrieb Robert Goldman:
Thank you very much for these, Marius. I will look into
fixing them
directly. One question - do I need to check for ECL version
number when
requiring sockets in the test? I.e., to I need to test with
|:rt| in
older versions and |:sockets| in newer? Or will |:sockets|
work
in older
versions of ECL, as well?
Best,
R
On 30 Aug 2018, at 12:46, Marius Gerbershagen wrote:
Harmless in the sense that ECL doesn't crash or throw me in
the
interactive debugger. Besides, the test failures seem to be
easily
fixed. The test-require.script test fails because it tries to
require
the :rt module which is deprecated on the develop branch and
no
longer
build by default. A simple fix is to use the :sockets module
instead:
diff --git a/test/test-require.script
b/test/test-require.script
index e5f70857..1ef84e8c 100644
--- a/test/test-require.script
+++ b/test/test-require.script
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
#+allegro :sax
#+clisp (first (remove "asdf" *dynmod-list* :test 'equal))
#+(or clozure cmucl) :defsystem
- #+ecl :rt ;; loads faster than :ecl-quicklisp
+ #+ecl :sockets
#+lispworks "comm"
#+mkcl :walker
#+sbcl :sb-md5
The test-program.script test seems to fail to include uiop
because of an
error in the linkable-system function. Tracing it shows that
the
function returns nil for the uiop system object,
1> (ASDF/BUNDLE::LINKABLE-SYSTEM #<system "uiop">)
<1 (ASDF/BUNDLE::LINKABLE-SYSTEM NIL)
which seems to be caused by a missing call to coerce-name:
diff --git a/bundle.lisp b/bundle.lisp
index 2ff56f93..42034c9f 100644
--- a/bundle.lisp
+++ b/bundle.lisp
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ which is probably not what you want; you
probably
need to tweak your output tran
;; If an ASDF upgrade is available from source, but not a
UIOP
upgrade to that,
;; then use the asdf/driver system instead of
;; the UIOP that was disabled by check-not-old-asdf-system.
- (if-let (s (and (equal x "uiop") (output-files 'lib-op
"asdf")
(find-system "asdf/driver")))
+ (if-let (s (and (equal (coerce-name x) "uiop")
(output-files
'lib-op "asdf") (find-system "asdf/driver")))
(and (output-files 'lib-op s) s))
;; If there was no source upgrade, look for modules provided
by
the implementation.
(if-let (p (system-module-pathname (coerce-name x)))
Am 29.08.2018 um 01:22 schrieb Faré:
I can't reproduce this, for me the tests run fine without
being thrown
in the debugger. I only get two harmlessly looking test
failures
(test-program.script and test-require.script).
No test failure is harmless. The test-program.script failure
is what
Robert saw, that I can reproduce. I didn't reproduce a
failure with
test-require. I had more problems with ECL from the develop
branch,
but maybe it was a bad idea to use the develop branch.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
•Reflection&Cybernethics•
http://fare.tunes.org
There are two kinds of people, those who do the work
and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group;
there is less competition there
— Indira Gandhi.
