[asdf-devel] Still having problems on upgrade tests
Robert Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Mon Mar 4 03:23:33 UTC 2013
On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -8:56 PM, Dave Cooper wrote:
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> If you can outline for me the steps to do it, I can try this on ACL 8.2
> and 9.0 on Windows and Linux, if you like...
I am just doing the following:
setting ASDF_TEST_LISPS to a list of the lisps I have installed (this
would be at least "allegro allegromodern" for you, and perhaps some others.
Then I can do
make test-all
and the scripts will run both static and upgrade tests for all the lisps
in ASDF_TEST_LISPS.
I also have 8.2 and 9.0. Unfortunately, the make scripts right now
aren't that friendly to testing both -- what I do is test each one
separately by pushing its install directory onto the shell PATH.
>
> By the way, out of curiosity, why is it necessary to upgrade asdf for
> Allegro? Do you have an image with asdf built in? Franz ships
> code/asdf.fasl then updates with code/asdf.xyz - right now (for 9.0 at
> least) they are on asdf.002 which just came down last week and is 2.31.1
> I believe. So normally the Allegro will just load the latest asdf fasl
> on demand.
One nuisance I have noticed is that they have updated the fasls in 8.2
without updating src/asdf.lisp, which means that the asdf you have
loaded has drifted from the one for which you have source....
Probably what we most care about is upgrading from the current bundled
version to the head and released versions in git.
>
> Is the test just to make sure that an upgrade works properly for people
> who might have saved images and want to update their asdf in that same
> image?
I will leave these to Faré to answer...
cheers,
r
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info
> <mailto:rpgoldman at sift.info>> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/13 Mar 3 -5:38 PM, Faré wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Robert Goldman
> <rpgoldman at sift.info <mailto:rpgoldman at sift.info>> wrote:
> >> The upgrade test for ACL from 1.85 fails reliably with this error:
> >>
> >> Warning: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #<compile-op > on
> >> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">.
> >> Warning: COMPILE-FILE failed while performing #<compile-op > on
> >> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">.
> >> TEST ABORTED:
> >>
> #P"/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-8.2m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl"
> >> does not exist, cannot load
> > [...]
> >> Script failed
> >> upgrade FAILED for allegromodern from 1.85 using method
> >> 'load-asdf-lisp'load-asdf-system
> >>
> >> Interestingly, when I paste the replication string into bash:
> >>
> >> ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS="1.85"
> >> ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_METHODS="'load-asdf-lisp'load-asdf-system"
> >> ./test/run-tests.sh -u allegromodern
> >>
> >> this works fine.
> >>
> >> So this only fails for me when running in the context of make....
> >>
> > Works for me, at least with Allegro 9.0:
> >
> > make u l=allegro ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85
> > make u l=allegromodern ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85
>
> I'm stumped. It fails for me on Allegro 9.0 just as with 8.2
>
> Note that this happens for me in the context of 'make test-all'
>
>
> make u l=allegromodern ASDF_UPGRADE_TEST_TAGS=1.85
>
> also fails...
>
> Somehow the build is not working:
>
> rpg% ls
> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-9.0m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl
> ls: cannot access
> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/fasls/acl-9.0m-macosx-x64/asdf/build/asdf.fasl:
> No such file or directory
>
> For some reason, I have no asdf.fasl there, but I *do* have an
> asdf.lisp...
>
> I see this, which indicates that the fasl is being written in the wrong
> location:
>
> ; Registering #<system "asdf">
> ;;; Writing fasl file /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.fasl
> ;;; Fasl write complete
> Warning: COMPILE-FILE warned while performing #<compile-op > on
> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">.
> Warning: COMPILE-FILE failed while performing #<compile-op > on
> #<cl-source-file "asdf" "build" "asdf">.
>
> And that's the file, alright:
>
> pg% head build/asdf.fasl
> ?z??#<<AcL>> /Users/rpg/lisp/asdf/build/asdf.lisp by rpg on
> rpgoldman-3.local at 2013-03-03T19:40:46+06\
> using 9.0 [64-bit Mac OS X (Intel)] (Feb 26, 2013 9:53)\
> fasl version = 63\
> runtime version = 33\
> for non-smp lisps; #+8-bit-specific code; #+16-bit-specific code\
> Optimization settings at wfasl time:\
> ((safety 3) (space 1) (speed 2) (compilation-speed 1) (debug 2))\
>
> So is there something going awry in the build process?
>
> Best,
> r
>
>
> >
> > I can't try allegro 8.2, because my license has expired, and Franz
> > only offers one until January 31st 2013, and I don't feel like
> > cheating on the system date:
> > http://www.franz.com/products/express/
> >
> > Is it a case of confusion whereby we changed the way the
> > implementation identifier is computed, and asdf creates the fasl in
> > one directory but somehow looks for it in another?
> >
> > What is the command that makes it fail, already?
> >
> > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> > The kingly office is entitled to no respect. It was originally
> procured by the
> > highwayman's methods; it remains a perpetuated crime, can never be
> anything but
> > the symbol of a crime. It is no more entitled to respect than is
> the flag of
> > a pirate. — Mark Twain
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> asdf-devel mailing list
> asdf-devel at common-lisp.net <mailto:asdf-devel at common-lisp.net>
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> My Best,
>
> Dave Cooper, Genworks Support
> david.cooper at genworks.com <mailto:david.cooper at genworks.com>,
> dave.genworks.com <http://dave.genworks.com>(skype)
> USA: 248-327-3253(o), 1-248-330-2979(mobile)
> UK: 0191 645 1699
More information about the asdf-devel
mailing list