[asdf-devel] fare-utils build failure

[Faré]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Zach Beane <xach at xach.com> wrote:
> Faré <fahree at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sure. Which format do you prefer?
>> If I remember correctly, you will want a directory asdf-driver-2.26.100/
>> containing the code.
>
> Either format is fine. Sometimes a tarball implies a level of release
> engineering.
>
That begs the question: how should asdf be distributed?
As asdf.lisp only? As a tarball or git checkout with everything?
As a tarball with only the asdf-specific source files, to be combined
with asdf-driver code into asdf.lisp? Some or all of the above?
As for me, I'll keep using the git checkout, but I suppose
you might have ideas as to what you prefer for quicklisp.

>> PS: I'm declaring asdf-utils and xcvb-utils obsolete and will be removing them.
>> I've also stripped xcvb-driver of all its portability layer and will
>> redirect my packages
>> (such as inferior-shell) to use asdf-driver instead. I was sorely missing the
>> pathname portability in xcvb-driver, and it has now been cleaned up and
>> documented in asdf-driver.
>
> A number of my private projects depend on asdf-utils. If you do not wish
> to maintain it, please let someone else do it.
>
Then I am inclined to make asdf-utils an alias for asdf-driver,
and add the nickname :asdf-utils to :asdf/driver.
All the functions in asdf-utils are present in asdf-driver
(Well, I admit I refactored away a few that couldn't be found used on quicklisp,
but they hopefully won't be missed; for instance if you rely on the old name
coerce-pathname instead of the more general parse-unix-namestring, buzz me.)
And yes, I am willing to maintain it for the time being.
It is also still time to wholly rename asdf-driver into asdf-utils,
if you think that is preferable: you're the only user I've heard of.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
        — H. L. Mencken