[asdf-devel] Mac OSX test upgrade status
rpgoldman at sift.info
Tue Feb 26 22:12:28 UTC 2013
On 2/26/13 Feb 26 -2:52 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>> I got through almost all the upgrade tests before failing with
>> allegromodern trying to upgrade from 1.85:
>> ; registering #<system :asdf @ #x1000afe932> as asdf
>> ; Fast loading /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl
>> TEST ABORTED: Attempt to fast load a non-fasl file:
>> Script failed
>> upgrade FAILED for allegromodern from 1.85 using method
>> I can see why this fails!
>> When I look at ~/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl in emacs I see this:
>> #!/usr/local/bin/sbcl --script
>> # FASL
>> compiled from "/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.lisp"
>> using SBCL version 126.96.36.199-63e78fc
>> which suggests to me that we may be leaking something from one test to
> Oh, I see.
> Usually, we do not create a build/asdf.fasl,
> because the output-translations layer moves it away.
> However, when testing antique version 1.85, we do create that file.
> And then, we have the clash between asdf.fasl from sbcl
> and asdf.fasl from allegro, just like we used to have in the bad old times
> — precisely because we're testing an upgrade from the bad old times.
> To counter that, the first upgrade target is load-asdf-lisp-clean,
> but in this case, it wasn't cleaning enough.
> I've pushed a fix to the repository, and my manual testing
> suggests the tests are working after in a way that they weren't before:
> make u l=sbcl ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85
> make u l=allegro ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85
Drat! Still not fully fixed in the context of
Above backtrace due to this condition:
does not exist, cannot load
upgrade FAILED for allegromodern from 1.85 using method
you can retry just that test with:
./test/run-tests.sh -u allegromodern
or more interactively (and maybe with rlwrap or in emacs), start with:
(load"test/script-support.lisp") (asdf-test::da) (test-upgrade
My guess is that this is another one of those bugs that's a bug in the
testing, rather than in ASDF itself...
I notice that the test is trying to load from my .cache rather than
loading from the special place for parking asdf test products. Is that
More information about the asdf-devel