[asdf-devel] Is this necessary in this form? Re: ASDF 1.501

[james anderson]

On 2010-02-02, at 18:17 , Faré wrote:

> I agree with James that a bootstrapped asdf would be elegant.
> Unhappily it wouldn't be practical. asdf being only one file is very
> useful for many reasons.

please explain.

> It being one directory would not be too bad,
> but still one file is better. pjb has a nice suggestion that we could
> split it in many files and have some build tool concatenate those
> files for distribution. That would work for me, but nowhere near at
> the top of my todo list.
>
> As pjb says, my main concerns are about
>
>>  (a) Upgradability
> Making asdf self-upgradable, so we no more have the horror of having
> to deal with antique prepackaged asdf's.

the only things with notes about upgradability were the fmakunbound  
and the two #+ecl adds. together about a dozen lines.

>
>>  (b) Site and user configuration
> Minimizing setup complexity for non-experts.
>
>>  (c) Asdf binary locations / asdf output locations
> ABL was already merged into ASDF by gwking. While I think it was a
> generally good move, it fails (b), and I think can and should be
> redone better.

then, once asdf is configurable, is there any reason to not take abl  
out of the core?