Toward an ASDF 3.1.6 ?

[Faré]

> Should we see about making sure we have a working ASDF on ACL for 3.1.6?
>
Yes of course. If we were quick, we'd manage to release just before
ACL is finalized so they can ship with it. Not sure we're that quick.

> I'm wondering if we should back out the change to system pathnames for
> ticket 1485276.  Is that a bug fix, so ok to shove out in 3.1.6, or is
> it a new feature, which might better be held for 3.2?
>
It's between the two. It's also backward compatible with systems that
don't use :pathname for their defsystem. Now
1- this is the case of all 6 systems in Quicklisp that use
package-inferred-system
2- there is no imaginable reason why anyone would currently use
:pathname in a package-inferred-system, since it had so far no effect
whatsoever

NB: OK, technically, if you combine being a package-inferred-system
with having a traditional list of :components, then it did affect the
pathname of the components, but no one does that, and it's perverse
anyway because it leads to files having two different names — only
ASDF itself kind of puns file names this way, for the sake of
bootstrapping, and it doesn't use :pathname.

I'd keep that "fix" in 3.1.6, and keep disrecommending its use without
a :depends-on ((:version "asdf" "3.1.6")).

> I'll see how minimakefile behaves for me and get back to you...
>
Thanks a lot!

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
— Question authority!
— Yeah, says who?