[asdf-devel] asdf 1.600

[Faré]

Dear Juanjo,

ASDF 1.596 includes all the fixes I have for ECL. From there to 1.601
I also made a few fixes for the sake of passing tests, and defined and
exported a function COMPILE-FILE-PATHNAME* but 1.601 and 1.596 are
probably functionally equivalent as far as delivering on ECL goes. I
still would recommend 1.601 as it is an "official" release (whatever
that means) whereas 1.596 isn't.

Note that ECL passes tests, if only I tell the test suite to not worry
about the warnings ECL issues while compiling asdf.lisp. It is
probably a bug in ECL that it should issue these warnings: plenty of
unused variable warnings for variables used while dispatching methods,
warnings about an unused variables CLOS::.GENERIC-FUNCTION.SI::TEMP as
introduced by ECL itself in some macro. Also annoying notes about
.COMBINED-METHOD-ARGS. was undefined. Compiler assumes it is a global.
Unknown type (VALUES &REST T)
And one about ECL expecting two arguments from unintern.
The problem with ignoring warnings from ECL is that, though I ignore
bogus warnings now, I may be ignoring valid warnings tomorrow.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate
and captain of your soul.


On 4 February 2010 04:10, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And so, regarding ECL: please upgrade ASDF to 1.601 if you can. It
>> would be nice. And reduce the asdf self-upgrade strictures.
>
> The point is that I upgraded to 1.596 on Samium's request and assurance that
> it works with ECL, and now we reached 1.601 I want to make a release of ECL
> soon and need somehow a hint that the choice is right and will not be broken
> in the near future.