[asdf-devel] Alternate default lisp system location

Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info
Wed Mar 12 19:17:54 UTC 2014

Faré wrote:
>>>>> 1- I think we should proceed and add a default path anyway.
>>>>> >>>>   ~/cl/ and/or ~/common-lisp/ sound fine to me, and I've seen no one
>>>>> >>>> complain about that.
>>>>> >>>>   You could make it ~/local/common-lisp/ if you're into larger paths.
>> >
>> > I think I will put "asdf" into the pathname, per our earlier discussion,
>> > so that we don't step on pre-existing paths.
>> >
>> > ~/asdf-local-paths/
>> >
>> > would work for me.
>> >
> I really don't like including asdf in the name, especially since other
> tools than asdf exist and may exist in the future, and will want to
> share the common-lisp source code hierarchy.
> ~/local/common-lisp/ has the advantage of being clutter-limiting,
> XDG-like if not strictly XDG, clean, etc., and just one character
> longer than your proposal.

I am less excited about the future and find it more appealing in terms
of non-collision, to get "asdf" in the name.  But I am willing to be
overridden; my preference is weak.

OTOH, I don't like ~/local/common-lisp/ because it seems to me that the
"local" pathname component doesn't mean anything.  Its XDG-likeness
seems to me a hazard -- it can be confused with ".local" and has no
corresponding advantage.

Unless someone can convince me there's some useful tree to insert
ourselves into, I think the default lisp code directory should be a
direct subdirectory of ~, not an indirect one.

Does anyone have an argument for not being at the root?

> ~/common-lisp/ is slightly more pretentious, but probably works, too.
> ~/cl/ is taking a lot of familiarity, and maybe I should keep it my
> personal configuration rather than a recommended default.

These last two have been rejected by Pascal and others for what I feel
are good reasons.

Thanks, everyone!  I believe this discussion is leading us to a better


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list