[asdf-devel] Re: Bug#723977: missing symlink in /usr/share/common-lisp/systems

[Robert P. Goldman]

 Faré wrote:
 > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net>
wrote:
 >> Faré wrote:
 >>> Robert: when do you [intend] to release 3.0.3 ? Otherwise, I could
do a Debian
 >>> package for 3.0.2.9. (PS: I took the liberty of also committing my
 >>> load-systems* patch).
 >> I was waiting on those two more UIOP patches (see the launchpad tracker
 >> -- sorry I'm on a plane so I can't look them up myself), but I agree
 >> that this needs a new version.
 >>
 > Which UIOP patches were you thinking of? I fixed a simple one
 > regarding ensure-function. I see other portability issues with
 > directory* and symlinks, but I am not competent to address them.

 I'm thinking of 1205555 https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1205555 and
 1205653 https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1205653

 I was hoping to get some work done on these, but that target is slipping.
 >
 >> I'll be OOT till Friday, but will try to run the full set of tests (they
 >> run on my laptop on all officially supported platforms), and if they
 >> pass,  we can release 3.0.3 then.
 >>
 > Excellent.
 >
 >> I am afraid I still don't have the ability to test on linux, or to build
 >> the Debian package -- still without a linux platform on which to
hack ASDF.
 >>
 > I can do that part, at least for the free software and proprietary
 > implementations for which I still have a license.

 I just tested on an old and crufty linux box.  Worked for ccl sbcl cmucl
 allegro allegromodern.  ECL fails the test on my box.  Goes into an
 infinite loop compiling test/file3.lisp -- gets an error in compilation,
 retries, gets an error ....

 This may be the fact that I'm trying this on an ancient OpenSUSE box,
 with a distro version that's been EOLed, so that may be me, not ASDF.

 If you could test with ECL, and it works for you, I am going to chalk
 this up to my ancient distro.
 >
 >> I am still having mysterious problems with bundling on my tests on ABCL
 >> and ECL, but I am pretty sure that the errors on ECL have to do with its
 >> own incorrect detection of 32- vs. 64-bit.  ABCL is a bit more
 >> mysterious to me.  Haven't been able to get any help with either of
 >> these, so don't think they should be allowed to block progress on other
 >> implementations.
 >>
 > In case it means anything, tests pass on both ECL and ABCL on Linux x64.

 As I said, I think ECL, as packaged by Mac Ports is busted on Mac, and I
 can't fix it.

 I don't have a good way to tell if ABCL is busted on Mac or our bundle
 op is busted on Mac.

 Best,
 r