[Asdf-devel] Problem with Minimakefile branch -- was Re: Merging experimental-submodules

[Faré]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> Kambiz Darabi wrote:
>> I don't know how many people are devs and how many people just 'users'
>> in the sense that they clone the repo and use it without caring about
>> the dependencies of asdf.
>>
>> But your point is definitively valid.
>
> Actually, Kambiz's point is a good one, and it illustrates a real
> problem with the minimakefile branch.
>
> With the old makefile, all someone needed to do if they were to checkout
> and test ASDF was to grab the git repo, and type
>
> make test l=<my lisp>
>
> Now this process is substantially more complicated because now the user
> will have to go to substantially more work to get our not extensively
> tested CL infrastructure up and running.
>
Uh? Either he has a source-registry with dependencies, or he has quicklisp,
or he can "make dependencies", which can be mentioned in the README.

That's one easy extra step, if he doesn't use quicklisp and isn't an advanced
user who otherwise checked out all dependencies, either. It requires git,
but so did checking out asdf.

I don't see that as something "substantially more complicated", except maybe
that there might be a need for two tarballs, with or without dependencies.

> We should seriously consider revising the minimakefile so that testing
> does not require CL scripting, but instead goes back to using make and
> bash alone.
>
Well, a make dependencies target should certainly be available
that doesn't require CL scripting, but the whole point of this branch is
CL scripting.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. — old military saying