[asdf-devel] Re: Testing ASDF with cl-test-grid

[Faré]

The failures in http://cl-test-grid.appspot.com/blob?key=1v5pgltcap
are interesting.

The CCL specific failures, I fear I can't explain, and won't even try.

The exscribe failure has no ASDF in its backtrace; this suggests that
it's a Quicklisp failure, probably due to it being unable to parse
(:feature :exscribe-typeset :cl-typesetting) as a dependency, and
recursing into a non-existent system exscribe-typeset, when it's
actually a feature that decides whether or not to depend on
cl-typesetting. Admittedly, I should probably have designed things
differently, and indeed have had a system exscribe-typeset that
unconditionally depends on both and hooks into exscribe. What bothers
me, then, is that the test only fails with the newer ASDF; why doesn't
it fail with the old ASDF? What effective version of ASDF is loaded?
Could cl-test-grid print that information in its header?

Regarding the lil failure: is quicklisp somehow removing
ASDF::SYSDEF-PACKAGE-SYSTEM-SEARCH from
ASDF::*SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS* ? What is the value of the
latter variable? But then why is it working with the old ASDF? My
guess is that's because it does have ASDF/PACKAGE-SYSTEM builtin, so
it loads it from the add-on system ASDF-PACKAGE-SYSTEM that installs
the search function dropped by quicklisp. However,
~/quicklisp/quicklisp/setup.lisp looks like it's doing the right thing
wrt *SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS*, and I don't see cl-test-grid
touching it, so I'm not so sure anymore, and I'm a bit baffled
actually.

Note that at home, I have no trouble loading either lil or exscribe,
with or without quicklisp, with or without the new asdf, using SBCL
1.1.13.41.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Every technique is first developed, then used, important, obsolete,
normalized, and finally understood.



On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
> SBCL and CCL results have arrived.
>
> Diff between ASDF HEAD and unpatched quicklisp:
> http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-24.html
>
> Testing of ASDF HEAD is done by copying new asdf.lisp to
> to quicklisp/asdf.lisp and changing
>  (defvar *required-asdf-version* "3.1.0.32")
> in quicklisp/setup.lisp.
>
> This means quicklis first does (reqire 'asdf) and load
> the ASDF version provided by lisp implementation, and
> then upgrates to the newer ASDF.
>
> 31.12.2013, 12:42, "Faré" <fahree at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
>>
>>>  31.12.2013, 12:32, "Faré" <fahree at gmail.com>:
>>>>  Don't overdo it. I would do it with
>>>>  maybe 2.26 (default from Quicklisp), 2.32.35 (previous tested),
>>>>  3.0.3 (latest stable) and 3.1.0.32 (release candidate),
>>>>  and that's already a lot.
>>>  OK.
>>>
>>>  HEAD has 3 commits after 3.1.0.32. The tests
>>>  are started for HEAD. Should we drop it and run for 3.1.0.32
>>>  or HEAD is better?
>>
>> I recommend using the latest HEAD.
>> The code should be the same (or I would have bumped the version).
>> Changes only happened in documentation, build and test files.
>>
>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
>> I am an atheist, thank God!