On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Rudolf Schlatte wrote:
> kr@... writes:
> [sbcl-cmucl file extension clash ...]
> > if sbcl could use a different suffix by default, it would simplify
> > keeping the compiled files separated and non-interfering. a possible,
> > reasonable suffix might be ".sbx86f"
> I have thought about this also, but this could become less of an issue
> with Peter Van Eynde's Common lisp controller, where every implementation
> transparently gets its own object code directory.
Yes, this is exactly the non-debian problem c-l-c is trying to solve.
I'll try to get a tar ball out soon with detailed instructions and setup
so a person can use c-l-c for his own code. System-wide stuff is the
problem for distribution maintainers and BOFH's :-)
As the bug reports from the debian packages are flooding in right now
I'll delay doing this until the major bugs have shown up...
In any case, in the mean time I would use logical-pathnames to solve
> But if the extension is changed, I would vote for plain old .fasl, for
> purely aesthetic reasons. :)
And why would we call it fasl? I think this must be slightly confusing
- Load the fasl
- I see no fasl here...
- There foo.x86f!
It's logic Jim, but not as we know it. | pvaneynd@...
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr|
"God is more forgiving." - Dave Aronson| http://cvs2.cons.org/~pvaneynd/