[asdf-devel] [Sbcl-devel] Logical pathnames vs ASDF & SBCL

Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 22:31:59 UTC 2011

> The main reason why I'm having problems with ASDF 2.x is
> because it's alpha-quality software at best (you're still trying
> to figure out some very basic concepts, it seems to me), yet
> you don't even call it beta quality, but instead choose to call
> it 2.x, push it down everybody's throats, and turn a whole
> community into alpha testers who didn't volunteer to be
> guinea pigs in the first place.

as people with positive opinion speak up much less, let me point out
here that i'm a happy user of ASDF2 from its early days.

it did require some work to follow it, but it made many things simpler
and more reliable in our dev setup and production environment (the
load order with underspecified dependencies using ASDF1 used to be
influenced by the filesystem order, seemingly not even randomly,
because errors consistently appeared when changes were pulled to
another computer. rmfasl didn't influence it. a real pain in the ass
when build fails on the production system after an upgrade...)

any form of backwards incompatibility, and upgrading in general, is a
pain, but we need to live with it because for now it's part of being a
software developer (it's solvable on the language/vm/devtool level,
but our ideas are mere vapour). i regularly unpull problematic patches
of random libraries, and ASDF is just one of them. luckily ASDF2 can
even properly upgrade itself now!

to me it's certainly an improvement over ASDF1.

thanks for all the work put into ASDF, both v1 and v2!


Notice the erosion of your (digital) freedom, and do something about it!

PGP: 2FA1 A9DC 9C1E BA25 A59C  963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
OTR XMPP: 8647EEAC EA30FEEF E1B55146 573E52EE 21B1FF06
BitCoin: 154uf86Vd9rpjMULd9CXa7nVwikknYZJiB

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list