[cl-debian] Re: clc, asdf-install, slime, fasl paths, etc.

[Peter Van Eynde]

Bonjour Faré,

Faré wrote:
> I'm trying to find a lean way to compile lisp packages over my
> network-shared home directory with many implementations on many
> machines, and I yearn for a way that would unify what slime, c-l-c and
> asdf-install each do.

I immediately see the cause for a problem here: homedirectory. clc was
meant to be machine-local, as to avoid mixing fasl's from different
architectures.

> Slime finds a nice way to create a (unique-directory-name) such as
>  sbcl-0.9.3.26-linux-x86_64
> and stores its fasl in ~/.slime/fasl/$UNIQUENAME/
> This works great but only for slime and with manual cleaning.


If they clean up the copyright notices I might enhance the debian slime
package to clean the local caches when a new implementation gets
installed. Is this something you would like to have?

I could also build in a hook into clc to allow moving the cache
directory. Slime could then instruct clc to use the same directory.

> c-l-c only uses things like
>   /var/cache/common-lisp-controller/$USER/$IMPL/$PACKAGE
> (except trying to infer user name from directory name instead of

You mean from user-homedir-pathname? We just use that as a method to
make $USER unique. There are no further requirements then the one that
it is unique, which it should be as described by the specs.

If the local administrator uses a scheme like
/home/science/physics/solid-state/students/p/pv/pva/pvaneynd it would
still work.

> asdf-install will try to install in either
...

asdf is only well-described for sbcl, that is one of reasons I make clc.
I did not place the fasls in $HOME because I wanted to make life easier
for administrators, and /var/cache normally is on the backup exclusion
list already :-)

> which in the latter case is wrong when the machine is shared between
> several SBCL implementations.

And it has no method of removing old fasls. At least the sbcl people
increase the fasl-version when it is required, unlike for example cmucl :-(.

> Maybe we can think of something that would unify what happens for user
> installations for slime, c-l-c and asdf-install?

Well. I fear we have a fundamental difference in option: I do not think
having fasls in (or beneath) the homedirectory is a good idea.

I am happy to include hooks so that you can cause yourself problems to
no end, but I prefer to not have to solve them. :-)

> I understand that if there are risks of bad side-effects between
> packaging systems and little benefit to integration, then having
> widely different installation directories is actually a feature. On
> the other hand, having a semi-standard way of allowing installation of
> lisp stuff, including stuff that is currently under development and
> not (yet) system packaged would be a nice plus.

In theory there is clc-register-user-package and friends, but I agree
they are not all what I imagined they would or could be.

Groetjes, Peter

-- 
signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave
Aronson|