From fahree at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 03:38:34 2017
From: fahree at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RmFyw6k=?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 22:38:34 -0500
Subject: MKCL 1.1.10 is now available
In-Reply-To: <CAN3WOFfcUbxvwWQtabRcnmo1+F9wsWKDnAkhxv-5oE6bCrWiww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN3WOFfcUbxvwWQtabRcnmo1+F9wsWKDnAkhxv-5oE6bCrWiww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN7nBXcTbT02sTA-Pgwt3u-izPVccYkLGpGXyJ60H=NNy8cROQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jean-Claude,

did MKCL recently change the bundle file type from "fasb" to "fas"?
ASDF seems to be failing its test-bundle.script now.

For the record, I never liked the idea of .fasb; but if you make
incompatible changes, please synchronize with me and other users.

Also, it seems to me that si:mkcl-version and
cl:lisp-implementation-version used to be the same (and/or the former
didn't exist?), but now latter is more precise whereas the former is
used for number .so. Is that correct?

Is it OK if I support only the latest version of MKCL?

Do you have an idea of how many users you have, and whether some
insist on using old versions of MKCL?

Finally, test-program.script now fails,


??? ? Fran?ois-Ren? ?VB Rideau ?Reflection&Cybernethics? http://fare.tunes.org


On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin
<jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com> wrote:
> MKCL 1.1.10 is now available for general use on the MKCL page along with the
> usual set of pre-compiled binaries for MS-Windows. This release is mostly a
> consolidation of all the bug fixes accumulated along the last 2 years and a
> half or so. Please consult the log on MKCL's gitlab repository for a
> detailed account of the changes.
>
> The content of the "contrib" directory has also been updated. Most notably,
> ASDF is now at 3.1.7 and CFFI at 0.18.0.
>
> Going back to MKCL 1.2.0 and its spectacular performance improvements both
> in time and space...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jean-Claude Beaudoin
>


From jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 09:49:22 2017
From: jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com (Jean-Claude Beaudoin)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 04:49:22 -0500
Subject: MKCL 1.1.10 is now available
In-Reply-To: <CAN7nBXcTbT02sTA-Pgwt3u-izPVccYkLGpGXyJ60H=NNy8cROQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN3WOFfcUbxvwWQtabRcnmo1+F9wsWKDnAkhxv-5oE6bCrWiww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7nBXcTbT02sTA-Pgwt3u-izPVccYkLGpGXyJ60H=NNy8cROQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN3WOFdgjymCdCEXBy9SZ2_d5P1njggfRZiPVhkHoya7u1+a2w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Far? <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jean-Claude,
>
> did MKCL recently change the bundle file type from "fasb" to "fas"?
> ASDF seems to be failing its test-bundle.script now.
>

No. Nothing has moved in a long time on that front.


>
> For the record, I never liked the idea of .fasb; but if you make
> incompatible changes, please synchronize with me and other users.
>
>
That .fasb business is a legacy of ECL as you know from the history
of asdf-bundle. I will duly inform you if I ever purposely consider some
incompatible change in that area of MKCL.


> Also, it seems to me that si:mkcl-version and
> cl:lisp-implementation-version used to be the same (and/or the former
> didn't exist?), but now latter is more precise whereas the former is
> used for number .so. Is that correct?
>

Yes, this was the first post-1.1.10 change to MKCL. This change should
only affect git controlled development versions of MKCL.  For released
versions of MKCL the two functions are still identical.  Under git, the
preference is given to the new #'si::git-describe-this-mkcl instead, which
gives a more exact description of the real version of the specific instance
of MKCL.  I thought that change was a good feature, maybe I was wrong.


>
> Is it OK if I support only the latest version of MKCL?
>

I don't have any expectations in that area other than that latest ASDF
release should work on latest MKCL master branch head or something
close to this. Seeing ASDF be backward compatible with earlier MKCL
version is surely a nice thing but it is an ASDF initiative.


>
> Do you have an idea of how many users you have, and whether some
> insist on using old versions of MKCL?
>

I do not have any counter on the number of MKCL instances in use out there
but I had some surprises in the past in that domain.
And I am not on notice that anyone insist on using any specific old version
of MKCL.


>
> Finally, test-program.script now fails,
>
>
I'll look into it (soon I hope).
Is this ASDF master head on MKCL master head or otherwise?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/mkcl-announce/attachments/20170203/e5802add/attachment.html>

From fahree at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 11:56:11 2017
From: fahree at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RmFyw6k=?=)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:56:11 +0000
Subject: MKCL 1.1.10 is now available
In-Reply-To: <CAN3WOFdgjymCdCEXBy9SZ2_d5P1njggfRZiPVhkHoya7u1+a2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN3WOFfcUbxvwWQtabRcnmo1+F9wsWKDnAkhxv-5oE6bCrWiww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7nBXcTbT02sTA-Pgwt3u-izPVccYkLGpGXyJ60H=NNy8cROQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN3WOFdgjymCdCEXBy9SZ2_d5P1njggfRZiPVhkHoya7u1+a2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN7nBXdkua6DPG8z5M5-eeEWf570ZyuA5PnW3DD0uZSLELa1bw@mail.gmail.com>

I fixed everything in my branch ecl-build.

I had to use fas instead of fasb on mkcl. Will investigate at some point.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017, 04:49 Jean-Claude Beaudoin <
jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Far? <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jean-Claude,
>
> did MKCL recently change the bundle file type from "fasb" to "fas"?
> ASDF seems to be failing its test-bundle.script now.
>
>
> No. Nothing has moved in a long time on that front.
>
>
>
> For the record, I never liked the idea of .fasb; but if you make
> incompatible changes, please synchronize with me and other users.
>
>
> That .fasb business is a legacy of ECL as you know from the history
> of asdf-bundle. I will duly inform you if I ever purposely consider some
> incompatible change in that area of MKCL.
>
>
> Also, it seems to me that si:mkcl-version and
> cl:lisp-implementation-version used to be the same (and/or the former
> didn't exist?), but now latter is more precise whereas the former is
> used for number .so. Is that correct?
>
>
> Yes, this was the first post-1.1.10 change to MKCL. This change should
> only affect git controlled development versions of MKCL.  For released
> versions of MKCL the two functions are still identical.  Under git, the
> preference is given to the new #'si::git-describe-this-mkcl instead, which
> gives a more exact description of the real version of the specific instance
> of MKCL.  I thought that change was a good feature, maybe I was wrong.
>
>
>
> Is it OK if I support only the latest version of MKCL?
>
>
> I don't have any expectations in that area other than that latest ASDF
> release should work on latest MKCL master branch head or something
> close to this. Seeing ASDF be backward compatible with earlier MKCL
> version is surely a nice thing but it is an ASDF initiative.
>
>
>
> Do you have an idea of how many users you have, and whether some
> insist on using old versions of MKCL?
>
>
> I do not have any counter on the number of MKCL instances in use out there
> but I had some surprises in the past in that domain.
> And I am not on notice that anyone insist on using any specific old
> version of MKCL.
>
>
>
> Finally, test-program.script now fails,
>
>
> I'll look into it (soon I hope).
> Is this ASDF master head on MKCL master head or otherwise?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/mkcl-announce/attachments/20170203/1b8ee26e/attachment.html>

From jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 20:57:16 2017
From: jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com (Jean-Claude Beaudoin)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:57:16 -0500
Subject: MKCL 1.1.10 is now available
In-Reply-To: <CAN7nBXdkua6DPG8z5M5-eeEWf570ZyuA5PnW3DD0uZSLELa1bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN3WOFfcUbxvwWQtabRcnmo1+F9wsWKDnAkhxv-5oE6bCrWiww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7nBXcTbT02sTA-Pgwt3u-izPVccYkLGpGXyJ60H=NNy8cROQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN3WOFdgjymCdCEXBy9SZ2_d5P1njggfRZiPVhkHoya7u1+a2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7nBXdkua6DPG8z5M5-eeEWf570ZyuA5PnW3DD0uZSLELa1bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN3WOFc_FhcNffsCcQe28r7sCvHj0_3j2CsxsKhxFeGTOn42zA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Far? <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> I fixed everything in my branch ecl-build.
>
> I had to use fas instead of fasb on mkcl. Will investigate at some point.
>

Bizarre, I am clueless as to why this had to be done.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/mkcl-announce/attachments/20170203/800431c4/attachment.html>