[asdf-devel] What are current plans for RMCL?

[Faré]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:02, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
> I'd like to get an idea what the current plans for RMCL are, if any. Since the switch to OS X 10.7, there is no default support for old PowerPC applications on OS X anymore, so RMCL doesn't work anymore, at least not without a major effort. Are there any plans to find a remedy for this situation? Or will RMCL effectively become deprecated?
>
As usual, I will accept patch. I will not be able to test RMCL anymore.


> I'm asking for the following reasons: When ASDF was changed from 1.x to 2.x, this caused some problems for RMCL, which I eventually resolved by using Common Lisp's logical pathnames for the systems I maintain (primarily Closer to MOP and ContextL). However, the current maintainers of ASDF have an unjustified very low regard for logical pathnames, which causes a lot of pain - basically, whenever a new version of a Common Lisp implementation comes bundled with a new ASDF version, I have to deal with bugs in ASDF that in one way or the other break my setup with logical pathnames.
>
> Since my time is limited and is better served on things other than producing bug reports for ASDF (which is a tool that should be much more stable than it currently is), I decided now that it is better to drop logical pathnames and go for the Unix-like names that the ASDF maintainers seem to strongly prefer. RMCL would be the only Common Lisp implementation that would cause a problem in this regard.
>
> So, what's the verdict?
>
>
> Thanks a lot for any hints!
>
> Best,
> Pascal
>
> --
> Pascal Costanza
> The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> asdf-devel mailing list
> asdf-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel


—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org