[cl-debian] ]clc: what to force into the cache directories and what not

[Faré]

Forgot to reply to all...

Also, re: Luca, as I said in a previous message, it just doesn't work
to wholly disable the cache if you don't also disable the ASDF
repository. Otherwise you get a lot of systems that you can't load
anymore, because they are in the repository, but you have no write
access to where they are. And so, even if the cache is controlled by a
toggle (instead of an exposed redirection list as I would like), this
toggle SHOULD NOT disable cacheing for clc-managed systems.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context -- a chair
in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a
city plan. -- Eliel Saarinen


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Faré <fahree at gmail.com>
Date: 02-Oct-2006 09:17
Subject: Re: clc: what to force into the cache directories and what not
To: Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd at debian.org>


Yes, such systems are broken. But more systems will be.
And when you develop, it is useful to have the fasl's in the current
directory so that your usual Makefiles work (especially the make clean
part). That is why cl-launch has a mechanism for excluding trees from
the cache. I propose that clc should have a similar mechanism.
Exposing the redirection configuration to the user can only be good. I
think such a mechanism should even be pushed into upstream ASDF (after
we finalize it), though with an empty configuration by default.

That said, we should *also* fix McClim and such. Usually a matter of
using (or *load-truename* *compile-file-truename*) instead of
*load-truename*.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
We know how syntax is prefix in LISP, whereas FORTH has a postfix syntax and
C's syntax is braindeadfix; well, the syntax of XML is a syntax that is a
hardcorepornfix syntax: it does it in the all places at the same time.

On 02/10/06, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd at debian.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm preparing a clc version that will undo the
> *redirect-fasl-files-to-cache* 'fix'. As I see it I could claim that the
> systems that fail when we redirect all fasls to the cache directories are
> just broken, but that is quite a statement. So what to do?
>
> - claim that slime/McClim is broken and fix them
> - only redirect to /var/cache for packaged libraries
>
> I'm voting for option 1.
>
> Oh Luca: #384457 seems still closed to me, not?