WARNING: System definition file ...

[Stas Boukarev]

I get 12 warnings with "System definition file  contains definition for
system . Please only define and secondary systems with a name starting with
in that file." while loading a single project.

How do I disable these warnings? If we are to update ASDF in SBCL I want to
make the asdf.lisp version bundled with SBCL to have them disabled by
default.

And if some future version of ASDF stops loading any of the 12 libraries,
then I just won't update SBCL to that ASDF version.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:22 AM Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3.3.0 issues a barrage of new warnings about something it has decided is
> > uncouth now.
> >
> On what systems is it issuing warnings? Any free software that we can
> patch?
>
> Without specific warnings coming from specific libraries, it's hard to
> tell what can be fixed, what cannot, what is an actual problem with
> the code you're using, what is possibly a problem about ASDF itself,
> etc.
>
> Odds are, the something had been decided as uncouth long ago, and ASDF
> just lacked the means to warn you about it.
>
> > I really have no wish to stare at these warnings coming from third party
> > libraries, especially since they're never going to be fixed.
> > Is the old behavior posing problems? Is the old behavior going away soon?
> >
> Yes, some old behavior is posing problem and has for years. Sometimes
> the old behavior has already gone away and/or is precariously emulated
> in slightly incompatible ways using the newer better interface.
> Sometimes we really want to get away from a really bad interface that
> has been deprecated for years (e.g. run-shell-command, which is a
> security liability in addition to been challenged with usability).
> Sometimes a recent refactoring made some operation non-sensical (e.g.
> operation-on-warnings) and/or not so useful (e.g. require-system), or
> a really bad interface to the system (system-registered-p).
>
> Depending on the interfaces, the old behavior may go away within two
> year, especially where supporting it is problematic and/or the
> interface is bogus and misleading and not properly doing what it was
> once advertised to be used for. Well, whoever is maintainer then will
> probably do something conservative that preserves compatibility (with
> some kind of warning) wherever it isn't an encouragement to writing
> nonsensical code.
>
> > This is why I don't update ASDF, I don't want to change anything in my
> code
> > because of a new version.
>
> Last I heard, janderson was using his own slightly forked ASDF 1, and
> some russians had forked ASDF 2.
>
> On the other hand, some programs depend on a recent ASDF, such as
> IOlib or CFFI, or scripts that depend on a fixes run-program or on its
> younger sibling launch-program, especially so on SBCL/Windows.
>
> There is no pleasing everyone, but there's going forward. SBCL also
> sometimes deprecates some old interfaces, and issues warnings to those
> who use them.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> Every four seconds a woman has a baby.
> Our problem is to find this woman and stop her.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20171012/3a083228/attachment.html>