[asdf-devel] ASDF 1.501

[Faré]

Just telling that it failed isn't very useful, especially when others
can't reproduce (painful with old SBCL, very expensive with ACL).

Can you attach a full log of the failures? Does ACL work better with
old version of the test suite? I remember that a lot of those tests
were failing on clisp at least.

PS: I see you were in Cambridge MA recently. Next time you are, contact me!

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped on you
from a very great height
        — Terry Pratchett.




2010/1/27 Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>:
> On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote:
>> I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all
>> the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's
>> currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather
>> than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it should be. Patch
>> welcome.
>>
>> Note that I bumped the version from 1.375 to 1.500 then 1.501. This to
>> indicate that we're not using CVS anymore, that I've reached a
>> milestone towards my goal of an "ASDF 2" that I could push as a
>> replacement to ASDF. It passes the tests with SBCL. But the tests
>> could be extended to do more.
>>
>> Next, comes a similar revamp of ASDF-BINARY-LOCATIONS configuration.
>> Or maybe a wholesale replacement of ABL with something that's simpler
>> and configured in a way similar to source-registry? What do YOU think?
>
> I have an old copy of SBCL, 1.0.28, which I keep around (we pinned
> ourselves to that revision for a project I was working on), and I tried
> to run the test suite on this version of SBCL, 64-bit Mac.
>
> The test suite failed, and here are the last several lines of the output:
>
> ; compilation unit finished
> ;   caught 2 STYLE-WARNING conditions
> ;   printed 1 note
>
>
> ; /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/asdf.fasl written
> ; compilation finished in 0:00:07.450
> Testuite failed: ASDF compiled with warningsbash-3.2$
>
>
> I thought that this might be a spurious failure having to do with being
> too stringent about what constitutes an ASDF compilation failure, so I
> tried to run the test suite again (figuring a compiled version of
> asdf.lisp would now be available), but it failed identically.
>
> Is this expected?  Should I ticket this?
>
> I will report on ACL tests shortly.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>