[asdf-devel] 2.014.8

[Daniel Herring]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Zach Beane wrote:

> Daniel Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> writes:
>
>> This is one of the spots where I think it is appropriate for a
>> distribution like Quicklisp to patch the sources locally, until the proper
>> changes are accepted upstream...
>>
>> Such portability and upgrade details need not be the concern of every
>> library author for life.
>
> The problem doesn't actually manifest itself unless the user has
> e.g. (declaim (optimize (safety 3))) in their init file in SBCL, and
> even then, it's because of an incompatible change in an ASDF minor
> version that, I think, can be fixed in ASDF.

Yes and no.  As it stands now, version information in ASDF files is 
virtually worthless.  If we nudge people towards using a single 
convention...

but there are other issues as well and it might not be worth the effort 
right now.

- Daniel