MKCL 1.1.10 is now available

[Faré]

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, Faré <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>