[asdf-install-devel] Patches, Darcs, 'n' stuff

[Dan Muller]

Gary King writes:
>
>> ... since ASDF
>> has persistent state about what systems are defined and where they are
>> -- I suppose it's possible for it to load a system from someplace
>> other than the test's installation location. Not sure how to address
>> that without reaching into ASDF's internals.
>
> This is easy to do by manipulated ASDF's notion of where to find
> systems (though it's tricky to do because you need to make sure that
> ASDF can still find all the other systems...). Hmmm.

Actually, once the unit tests are running, I don't think it really
needs to find anything other than what the test is installing?

I think that the problem I ran into was, due to trying to duplicate
the failed test's actions outside of the test environment. ASDF
remembered the subsystems it had installed for the tests, in
*DEFINED-SYSTEMS* or something like that, but the file locations it
had recorded for them only existed during the test!

>> The only other test that's failing for me now is TEST-1 of
>> DIRECT-INSTALL. Haven't started debugging that one yet.
>
> In case you don't already know, the problem is that the install
> command returns the name of the package installed and then tries to
> load that. In the usual case, the name is the name of the system;
> with the direct case, the name is the pathname / URL used and ASDF
> doesn't know how to install that.

Yeah, I remember noting something odd about that in the code. I'll
look at that some more. So are you saying this is generally broken?

I ended up trying to run the tests with the plain vanilla released
system, but am having some trouble with that, too. Still working on
that. Due to this effort, I suggest that you toss out all the patches
I offered you so far; I'm going to redo my tar extraction fixes with a
more minimal and (I hope) more robust set of changes, hopefully as a
set of patches that allows a plain vanilla installation (following the
instructions in the public tutorial) to pass the unit tests on
Windows.

>
>> I'm running these tests using my earlier patch for tar extraction,
>> with the alternative extractor in place.
>
> Great.

Except, see above. :)

-- 
Dan Muller