Re: ASDF vs. logical pathnames in CMUCL
Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.cclan.general,gmane.lisp.cmucl.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Christopher C. Stacy" <[email protected]> writes: > Is there something I should be using that's not ASDF? > Or are you stuck using this ASDF physical pathname solution at the moment? I can't find the specific mail that I wanted to repsond to right now, but this one will do. Various people have asserted that ASDF doesn't work with LPNs. For the record, if this is true it's not intentional. It is possible (and, I maintain, easiest) to use asdf without absolute pathnames at all (thus eliminating most of the need for LPNs) and I think most people are probably using it that way. I'll see if I can do something with your bug report this evening or over the weekend, depending on when I have time to install CMUCL. -dan -- "please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 188 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAo5XuHDK5ZnWQiRMRAsKCAJ4wpdEGWQGO1wKeJfqEjb9d6dmh2ACgyrx1 pFq9fMmbZ/fSqEbxxkY0GjQ= =xWA+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----