ASDF is 3.2 release candidate

Faré fahree at
Thu Jan 5 12:51:17 UTC 2017

Overall, the results look good. Robert, shall we release now?

1- For ECL, it looks like you may have kept old fasls from a run with
a previous version of asdf. Is that correct? That could explain some
confusion with escape-command.

2- For those CFFI failures, I'd like to see the logs for the stdout.
See previous message on redirecting output, using launch-program if
needs be.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
Reevaluate your ends periodically — if some of them or in contradiction with
reality or with each other, abandon or amend them without mercy — and those
you keep, pursue without any apology.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at> wrote:
> Current results:
> This reports includes only the subset of full diff where new version has failures.
> The lisps completed so far:
>     ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86
>     ccl-1.11-r16635-f96-linux-x86
>     clisp-2.49-unix-x86
>     cmu-snapshot-2016-12__21b_unicode_-linux-x86
>     ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-bytecode
>     ecl-16.1.2-unknown-linux-x86-lisp-to-c
>     sbcl-1.3.12-linux-x86
> If speak about SBCL results in this report, where previous
>  test has CRASH and new one has ffi/ffi-grovel FAIL
> -  it's an improvement, because the new version seem to better catch
> errors of running external programs.
> Why there are so many strange errors on ECL - I can't say now, deeper
> analysis is needed. Both tests were run on the same machine.

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list