>>>>> "TFB" == Thomas F Burdick <[email protected]> writes:
TFB> On 2/3/06, Gary King <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand. To make this more concrete, suppose I have
>>
>> * packaged up LIFT so that it contains two system definitions
>> (lift.asd and lift-test.asd),
>> * packaged up MOPTILITIES so that it containers two system
>> definitions (moptilites.asd and moptilities-test.asd)
TFB> Then don't do that, use asdf:test-op for your tests instead.
That may not be easy to do. E.g., I often use a local-only test
system that is not polished enough for me to release to the public.
In that case I like to make a separate ASDF testing system that can be
loaded, (with a dependency on the base system). That way people who
use my code don't have to be able to use my testing code. That seems
reasonable to me.
In general, it's not clear to me that a blanket restriction on the
contents of asdf-install systems is the best solution to this problem.
R
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.