[Sbcl-devel] ASDF Upgrade

[Steven Nunez via Sbcl-devel]

Are there any plans to upgrade ASDF?  The existing version of ASDF doesn't support package local nicknames with uiop:define-package.

[Robert Goldman]

On 5 Sep 2022, at 21:46, Steven Nunez via Sbcl-devel wrote:

Are there any plans to upgrade ASDF?  The existing version of ASDF doesn't support package local nicknames with uiop:define-package.

_______________________________________________
Sbcl-devel mailing list
Sbcl-...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel

Not sure what you mean by this. The latest version of ASDF, 3.3.6, supports package local nicknames in define-package.

[Cyrus Harmon via Sbcl-devel]

It's hard to keep track of the provenance the stuff in contrib/asdf as the ASDF repo has multiple files and SBCL just has a single asdf.lisp and uiop.lisp. Perhaps there's built in infrastructure for making single asdf.lisp and uiop.lisp files and then those get added to SBCL?

But, the problem is that the version of ensure-package in SBCL's contrib/asdf/uiop.lisp doesn't accept the local-nicknames kw arg. It was apparently added to fare's asdf/uiop/package.lisp in this commit:

https://github.com/fare/asdf/commit/85dedfebaf480a76325fa41e3bc50910b5c11f62

but that's not reflected in the version in SBCL's contrib. Perhaps it's not ASDF per se that's the problem, but rather UIOP?

thanks,

Cyrus 

[Robert Goldman]

I'm not sure why you have both asdf.lisp and uiop.lisp. Normally, ASDF is built by concatenating all of the relevant files into a single asdf.lisp file, which can be downloaded from here:

https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/archives/asdf.lisp

But I don't know how SBCL does the distribution of ASDF

Robert P. Goldman
Research Fellow
Smart Information Flow Technologies (d/b/a SIFT, LLC)

319 N. First Ave., Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401

Voice: (612) 326-3934
Email: rpgo...@SIFT.net

[Steven Nunez via Sbcl-devel]

Possibly relevant: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/issues/84

[Robert Goldman]

Refreshing myself on the context, this looks like an argument for jumping to 3.3.6, to avoid issues that could be encountered by having SBCL users encountering 3.3.5

Of course, that is a matter for discussion among the SBCL developers. But if there is anything I can do to help with the process, please do let me know, directly or through the asdf-devel mailing list.

Best,
R