ASDF 22.214.171.124 is 3.2 release candidate
fahree at gmail.com
Mon Dec 26 22:34:17 UTC 2016
OK, so apparently:
* make-operation: You need an updated iolib for further tests as this
causes a lot of errors :-(
* make-operation: eco, prove need to use make-operation (sent bug
reports). Many systems use prove.
* the uffi-tests bug is probably due to the update in cffi — dunno
whether it's addressed upstream or not. If not, it needs be reported.
Another package complains about an old uffi, so, maybe try to update
* the failures to locate some .so's might or might not be due to the
* make-operation: cl-protobufs had the bug, it was fixed already, but
not yet in ql; no system in ql uses it so no need to update for now
but if you do we can check that nothing else breaks.
* make-operation: error in lambda-reader-8bit is my fault. Fixed.
* Warning in uiop is my fault. Fixed.
PS: For redirecting the output of subprocesses, you can't just
redirect a lisp stream; the Lisp process itself must be started with
its outputs properly redirected. You can start the building Lisp
process with e.g. (uiop:run-program (lisp-invocation:lisp-invocation
...) :output my-logfile-pathname :error-output :output :input nil)
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
— Malachy McCourt
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
> Results are coming, these lisps are ready:
> The following report is the part of the diff including only results where new version fails:
> As we can see, other systems than asdf-systems-connections fails with the
> " OPERATION instances must only be created through MAKE-OPERATION." too.
> This error constitures the majority of failures.
> To make it easier seeing other errors, the next report filters out the
> " OPERATION instances must only be created through MAKE-OPERATION."
> and leaves only other errors:
> Notable are the cl-python failure, the "Unknown CFFI type (:STRUCT TUNION1)" error,
> the "Component CLSQL-UFFI-SYSTEM::UFFI does not match version 2.0, required by #<SYSTEM "clsql-uffi">"
> Best regards,
> - Anton
> 26.12.2016, 11:57, "Anton Vodonosov" <avodonosov at yandex.ru>:
>> Tests are running (wht updated slime, cffi, asdf-systems-connections)
>> 26.12.2016, 08:22, "Faré" <fahree at gmail.com>:
>>> I see no unexplained failure in Anton's previous test run, but it's
>>> possible that the explained failures are hiding further failures down
>>> the line.
>>> Anton: can you re-run with an updated asdf-systems-connections AND an
>>> updated SLIME?
>>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
>>> Have the courage to take your own thoughts seriously, for they will shape you.
>>> — Albert Einstein
>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I see a lot of failures on ECL that seem related to using swank,
>>>> except the swank package is not defined. That also might be caused by
>>>> a bad and/or old SLIME, that was badly abusing some asdf internals in
>>>> an incoherent way. Can you try with the latest SLIME?
>>>> Note that I am quite angry at the SLIME maintainers because I have
>>>> tried many times to offer them fixes to swank.asd but they never
>>>> merged any of my proposed pull requests.
>>>> Otherwise, it looks mostly good.
>>>> NB: When there is an error from a gcc subprocess, you don't seem to be
>>>> capturing the output, which goes directly to fd 1 / fd 2 of the
>>>> process, as inherited by the subprocess. Maybe you can fix that in
>>>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
>>>> The idea is not to confront bad ideas but to come up with good ideas.
>>>> Otherwise, your enemies define the game and you are the loyal opposition.
>>>> — Terence McKenna
>>>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
>>>>> It is the same system.
>>>>> When previous result was CRASH and new one is FAIL, it might be the same error. But when the previous was OK and new is FAIL, it's more suspicious.
>>>>> For example:
>>>>> (LOAD exscribe OK)
>>>>> (LOAD exscribe FAIL) QUICKLISP-CLIENT:SYSTEM-NOT-FOUND : System "fare-scripts/rescript" not found
>>>>> 26.12.2016, 02:36, "Faré" <fahree at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
>>>>>> It's not looking too bad, but there are a lot of new failures with the
>>>>>> latest sbcl, where some dll is not found. Can that be explained by
>>>>>> your running on a different setup where some libraries are missing, or
>>>>>> is that something I should investigate?
>>>>>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
>>>>>> Language is froth on the surface of thought. — John McCarthyte
More information about the asdf-devel