Re: [Sbcl-devel] --script and ASDF 2

[Daniel H. <dhe...@te...>]

Sorry to join the party late.


On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 9/30/10 Sep 30 -4:09 PM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
>> In SBCL, for example, --script implies both --no-userinit and
>> --no-sysinit (among other things). The intention is to make things
>> less dependent on user specific configurations.
>>
>> However, being able to find installed libraries is probably not such a
>> configuration issue.
>
> I don't necessarily agree.  It's easy for me to imagine a script that
> wants absolute control of what systems are going to be loaded.  E.g., a
> script that's distributed with a fixed set of libraries.

And such a script should not rely on sbcl being invoked with --script in 
the first place.  It should use a trick similar to Zach's as listed 
earlier.

(asdf:initialize-source-registry
    '(:source-registry :ignore-inherited-configuration))


>> However, that said, I wonder how to make sure that ASDF configuration
>> in general is consistent: consider for example a user who normally
>> disables output-translations in initfiles. Since --script disables
>> those initfiles, any ASDF systems used by them will use .cache --
>> presumably even if there were perfectly good fasl-files in the source
>> directory already.
>
> Ouch.  That suggests that what seemed like a sensible default case for
> interactive programmers might be really bad for use with --script.
>
> Unnecessary recompilation seems the least of our worries.  Another
> possibility would be inappropriately crushing the user's existing fasls
> with fasls compiled under a different, --script-imposed configuration.

Yet another reason a build system should facilitate fasl-only (no sources 
present) loading.  No chance of inappropriate recompilation.

Though presumably a script using the above trick could also set all the 
other asdf parameters as appropriate.

- Daniel