[asdf-devel] :logical-hostname

[james anderson]

On 2010-03-30, at 19:12 , Robert Goldman wrote:

> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Question:  are we going to create a logical pathname translation for
>>> just the system sources?  Or should we create also something like
>>>
>>> CL-PPCRE;FASLS;*.*.*
>>
>> if asdf decides to befried logical pathnames, it should allow the
>> system to define its own mapping.
>>
>>>
>>> in addition?  This seems a little tricky, since it requires that we
>>> hook
>>> into the output name rewriting logic, but probably is The Right  
>>> Thing.
>>
>> i had understood that the name rewriting logic is disabled for
>> logical pathnames.
>> which is as it should be.
>
> Clarification:  the name-rewriting logic would still be disabled for
> logical pathnames.  What I was suggesting was that
>
> <SYSTEM-NAME>:FASL;
>
> should be a logical pathname that would point to the location where
> <SYSTEM-NAME>'s (direct) fasls would be written by Faré's name  
> rewriting.
>
> I.e., this would be a way for the system to find its own fasls  
> reliably,
> no matter what the output name rewriting does.
>
> Is that more clear?

yes and no. if one wants to map binary files differently that source  
files, the present (last i looked) asdf behavior was adequate. the  
last i looked, my binaries were at the specified locations.
my experience[1] is that it works better if the pattern matches on  
the file type. given the proper mapping one neither needs nor wants  
any asdf internal mapping.

---
[1] : http://github.com/lisp/de.setf.utility/blob/master/ 
pathnames.lisp#L119