From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2011-05-01 12:41:42
|
I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great time to test for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. -- Juho Snellman |
From: Zach B. <xa...@xa...> - 2011-05-01 19:41:52
|
Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> writes: > I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great time to test > for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. It's not exotic, but I built the quicklisp world with the latest SBCL from git on Linux/AMD64 without any problems. Zach |
From: Jim W. <jw...@dr...> - 2011-05-01 20:58:11
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On May 1, 2011, at 14:35 , Zach Beane wrote: > Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> writes: > >> I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great time to test >> for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. > > It's not exotic, but I built the quicklisp world with the latest SBCL > from git on Linux/AMD64 without any problems. Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin x86 and x86_64. Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to look into a blowup I saw in testing today first. Any thoughts on best layout in Sourceforge / download page for experimental builds? I was thinking a subfolder of the release folder on Sourceforge, and a small list below the platform table with an explanatory paragraph on the web page. - -- Jim Wise jw...@dr... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk29yUwACgkQHDchQepTnhQDfQCeJlk0ydJRFVqYr0paEsZ46mUw fPwAn2hspJaJYxnMFjZKsKiw6rDPVULU =+8lq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-01 21:49:04
|
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On May 1, 2011, at 14:35 , Zach Beane wrote: > > > Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> writes: > > > >> I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great time > to test > >> for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. > > > > It's not exotic, but I built the quicklisp world with the latest SBCL > > from git on Linux/AMD64 without any problems. > > > Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin x86 > and x86_64. > > Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an > experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to look > into a blowup I saw in testing today first. > > Any thoughts on best layout in Sourceforge / download page for experimental > builds? I was thinking a subfolder of the release folder on Sourceforge, > and a small list below the platform table with an explanatory paragraph on > the web page. > Would someone please tell me how to upload binaries for Windows? I'm serious when I say I'd like to provide more up-to-date binaries for Windows. :-) -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Christoph E. <chr...@de...> - 2011-05-01 22:51:38
|
Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> writes: > I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great > time to test for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. Builds fine on powerpc/linux apart from some testsuit things [0] mipsel isn't that well failing to build some contribs [1] but that's not a regression. Regards Christoph [0] http://www.sieglitzhof.net/~christoph/1.0.47.31.tests.log [1] http://www.sieglitzhof.net/~christoph/sbcl.1.0.47.31.log -- 9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731 Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? |
From: vadrer <me...@va...> - 2011-05-02 00:02:19
|
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 14:48 -0700, Elliott Slaughter wrote: > Would someone please tell me how to upload binaries for Windows? I'm > serious when I say I'd like to provide more up-to-date binaries for > Windows. :-) are these possible in ZIP format? I would be happy to use ZIP, but MSI is not an option for me, unfortunately. Regards, Vadim. |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@in...> - 2011-05-02 00:43:02
|
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:10 PM, vadrer <me...@va...> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 14:48 -0700, Elliott Slaughter wrote: > >> Would someone please tell me how to upload binaries for Windows? I'm >> serious when I say I'd like to provide more up-to-date binaries for >> Windows. :-) > > are these possible in ZIP format? > > I would be happy to use ZIP, but MSI is not an option for me, > unfortunately. > > Regards, > Vadim. I find the MSI very useful; so, please whatever you do don't throw it away. |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-02 01:58:15
|
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis < gd...@in...> wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:10 PM, vadrer <me...@va...> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 14:48 -0700, Elliott Slaughter wrote: > > > >> Would someone please tell me how to upload binaries for Windows? I'm > >> serious when I say I'd like to provide more up-to-date binaries for > >> Windows. :-) > > > > are these possible in ZIP format? > > > > I would be happy to use ZIP, but MSI is not an option for me, > > unfortunately. > > I find the MSI very useful; so, please whatever you do don't > throw it away. > I am not in a position to do much, but I agree that the MSI is useful for my purposes. So far all my builds have been of MSIs, but I assume that I or someone else could build a tarball without significant difficulty (after all, that's how it's distributed on every other platform). As I said before, I will happily provide the files, I just don't have access to upload them.... -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@in...> - 2011-05-02 02:10:01
|
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Elliott Slaughter <ell...@gm...> wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <gd...@in...> wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:10 PM, vadrer <me...@va...> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 14:48 -0700, Elliott Slaughter wrote: >> > >> >> Would someone please tell me how to upload binaries for Windows? I'm >> >> serious when I say I'd like to provide more up-to-date binaries for >> >> Windows. :-) >> > >> > are these possible in ZIP format? >> > >> > I would be happy to use ZIP, but MSI is not an option for me, >> > unfortunately. >> >> I find the MSI very useful; so, please whatever you do don't >> throw it away. > > I am not in a position to do much, but I agree that the MSI is useful for my > purposes. So far all my builds have been of MSIs, but I assume that I or > someone else could build a tarball without significant difficulty (after > all, that's how it's distributed on every other platform). > As I said before, I will happily provide the files, I just don't have access > to upload them.... I'm sure SBCL maintainers won't dismiss your generous offer. Some of us (who can't manage to build up-to-date SBCL on windows 7) are eagerly awaiting a new binary upload. -- Gaby |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-04 19:08:14
|
Juho, Could you please take a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? I can't build on MinGW without this patch. Thanks. On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: > I'll try to release SBCL 1.0.48 next weekend. Now would be a great time to > test for regressions, especially on more exotic platforms. > > -- > Juho Snellman > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software > The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network > management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial > acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > > -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: David L. <da...@li...> - 2011-05-04 19:31:59
|
Hi, Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): > Could you please take a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than just whether uname indicates cygwin? d. |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-04 19:37:04
|
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau <da...@li...>wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): > > Could you please take a look at > https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? > > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. > > shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than > just whether uname indicates cygwin? > Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if you think that's a better idea than my current patch. -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2011-05-05 21:40:46
|
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < ell...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau <da...@li...>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): >> > Could you please take a look at >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? >> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. >> >> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than >> just whether uname indicates cygwin? >> > > Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if you > think that's a better idea than my current patch. That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be great. If not, I can apply the existing patch. -- Juho Snellman |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-06 00:30:10
|
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > ell...@gm...> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau <da...@li...>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): >>> > Could you please take a look at >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? >>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. >>> >>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than >>> just whether uname indicates cygwin? >>> >> >> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if you >> think that's a better idea than my current patch. > > > That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be great. > If not, I can apply the existing patch. > How about this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2115633/+files/patch2.txt I checked gcc --version for the string "cygming". I'm not sure how dependable that is, but it works on my copy of Cygwin. At any rate, from the output of gcc --version (copied below) I don't think there is anything better to search for. Cygwin: $ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MinGW: $ gcc --version gcc.exe (GCC) 4.5.2 Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-06 04:39:53
|
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Elliott Slaughter < ell...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < >> ell...@gm...> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau <da...@li...>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): >>>> > Could you please take a look at >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? >>>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. >>>> >>>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than >>>> just whether uname indicates cygwin? >>>> >>> >>> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if you >>> think that's a better idea than my current patch. >> >> >> That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be >> great. If not, I can apply the existing patch. >> > > How about this: Slight tweak: The last patch accidentally set execute permission on the file and this patch avoids that. https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2115899/+files/patch2.1.txt -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-06 07:01:53
|
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Elliott Slaughter < ell...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > ell...@gm...> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < >>> ell...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau <da...@li... >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): >>>>> > Could you please take a look at >>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? >>>>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. >>>>> >>>>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather than >>>>> just whether uname indicates cygwin? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if you >>>> think that's a better idea than my current patch. >>> >>> >>> That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be >>> great. If not, I can apply the existing patch. >>> >> >> How about this: > > > Slight tweak: The last patch accidentally set execute permission on the > file and this patch avoids that. > Thought of something else: I should be testing CC instead of gcc in case someone ends up pointing CC to something else. https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116028/+files/patch2.2.txt Hopefully this is the final version of the patch, unless anyone finds any other issues. -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Martin C. <cra...@co...> - 2011-05-06 15:20:16
|
1.0.47.31 works fine with my toy and didn't observe any slowdowns. Didn't try SLIME. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cra...@co...> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ |
From: James Y K. <fo...@fu...> - 2011-05-06 16:50:43
|
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > ell...@gm...> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Elliott Slaughter < >> ell...@gm...> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < >>>> ell...@gm...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau >>>>> <da...@li... >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): >>>>>> > Could you please take a look at >>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? >>>>>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather >>>>>> than >>>>>> just whether uname indicates cygwin? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if >>>>> you >>>>> think that's a better idea than my current patch. >>>> >>>> >>>> That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be >>>> great. If not, I can apply the existing patch. >>>> >>> >>> How about this: >> >> >> Slight tweak: The last patch accidentally set execute permission on the >> file and this patch avoids that. >> > > Thought of something else: I should be testing CC instead of gcc in case > someone ends up pointing CC to something else. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116028/+files/patch2.2.txt > > Hopefully this is the final version of the patch, unless anyone finds any > other issues. You should be checking $CC -dumpmachine rather than --version. E.g.: $ gcc -dumpmachine i686-pc-cygwin $ gcc -dumpmachine -mno-cygwin i686-pc-mingw32 |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-06 18:07:09
|
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:10 AM, James Y Knight <fo...@fu...> wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > > ell...@gm...> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > >> ell...@gm...> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Juho Snellman <js...@ik...> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Elliott Slaughter < > >>>> ell...@gm...> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Lichteblau > >>>>> <da...@li... > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Quoting Elliott Slaughter (ell...@gm...): > >>>>>> > Could you please take a look at > >>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339 ? > >>>>>> > I can't build on MinGW without this patch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> shouldn't it test whether the gcc in PATH is a cygwin gcc, rather > >>>>>> than > >>>>>> just whether uname indicates cygwin? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quite possibly. I could write such a patch for that later today if > >>>>> you > >>>>> think that's a better idea than my current patch. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> That would be a nicer approach. If you have time to do it, that'd be > >>>> great. If not, I can apply the existing patch. > >>>> > >>> > >>> How about this: > >> > >> > >> Slight tweak: The last patch accidentally set execute permission on the > >> file and this patch avoids that. > >> > > > > Thought of something else: I should be testing CC instead of gcc in case > > someone ends up pointing CC to something else. > > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116028/+files/patch2.2.txt > > > > Hopefully this is the final version of the patch, unless anyone finds any > > other issues. > > You should be checking $CC -dumpmachine rather than --version. > Ok, new patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/777339/+attachment/2116985/+files/patch3.txt Comments welcome. -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Jim W. <jw...@dr...> - 2011-05-09 16:50:03
|
Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: > Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin x86 and x86_64. This is done, and the download page is updated. > Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an > experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to > look into a blowup I saw in testing today first. I've uploaded Solaris x86 and Darwin x86 and x86_64 experimental threading builds to a subdirectory of the 1.0.48 release named `experimental'. I'll figure out a good way to note this on the download page later today or tomorrow. -- Jim Wise jw...@dr... |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@in...> - 2011-05-09 20:31:11
|
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> wrote: > Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: > >> Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin x86 and x86_64. > > This is done, and the download page is updated. > >> Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an >> experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to >> look into a blowup I saw in testing today first. > > I've uploaded Solaris x86 and Darwin x86 and x86_64 experimental > threading builds to a subdirectory of the 1.0.48 release named > `experimental'. Anything on the windows binary side? > > I'll figure out a good way to note this on the download page later today > or tomorrow. > > -- > Jim Wise > jw...@dr... > |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-09 20:44:55
|
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis < gd...@in...> wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> wrote: > > Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: > > > >> Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin > x86 and x86_64. > > > > This is done, and the download page is updated. > > > >> Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an > >> experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to > >> look into a blowup I saw in testing today first. > > > > I've uploaded Solaris x86 and Darwin x86 and x86_64 experimental > > threading builds to a subdirectory of the 1.0.48 release named > > `experimental'. > > Anything on the windows binary side? > I'll do a build tonight. -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Elliott S. <ell...@gm...> - 2011-05-10 04:21:17
|
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Elliott Slaughter < ell...@gm...> wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis < > gd...@in...> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> wrote: >> > Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: >> > >> >> Solaris x86 and x86_64 look good to release. I'll also upload Darwin >> x86 and x86_64. >> > >> > This is done, and the download page is updated. >> > >> >> Barring objections I'll upload a Solaris x86 threading build as an >> >> experimental build. Will do the same for Darwin x86_64, but need to >> >> look into a blowup I saw in testing today first. >> > >> > I've uploaded Solaris x86 and Darwin x86 and x86_64 experimental >> > threading builds to a subdirectory of the 1.0.48 release named >> > `experimental'. >> >> Anything on the windows binary side? >> > > I'll do a build tonight. > Windows build is up: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sbcl/sbcl-1.0.48-x86-windows-binary.msi Also, I updated the webpage, but found myself unable to commit to CVS, so would someone with the privileges to do so please commit the following? Thanks. cvs diff: Diffing . Index: platform-support-platforms.lisp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/sbcl/sbcl-page/platform-support-platforms.lisp,v retrieving revision 1.137 diff -u -r1.137 platform-support-platforms.lisp --- platform-support-platforms.lisp 9 May 2011 16:45:04 -0000 1.137 +++ platform-support-platforms.lisp 10 May 2011 04:18:54 -0000 @@ -48,4 +48,4 @@ (define-port :x86-64 :openbsd :available "1.0.48" :os-version 49) (define-port :powerpc :openbsd :available "1.0.48" :os-version 49) -(define-port :x86 :windows :in-progress "1.0.37" :file-type "msi") +(define-port :x86 :windows :in-progress "1.0.48" :file-type "msi") -- Elliott Slaughter "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2011-05-10 06:15:31
|
Elliott Slaughter <ell...@gm...> writes: > Windows build is up: > > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sbcl/sbcl-1.0.48-x86-windows-binary.msi > > Also, I updated the webpage, but found myself unable to commit to CVS, so > would someone with the privileges to do so please commit the following? Done. Cheers, Christophe |
From: Gabriel D. R. <gd...@in...> - 2011-05-10 06:17:36
|
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > Elliott Slaughter <ell...@gm...> writes: > >> Windows build is up: >> >> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sbcl/sbcl-1.0.48-x86-windows-binary.msi >> >> Also, I updated the webpage, but found myself unable to commit to CVS, so >> would someone with the privileges to do so please commit the following? > > Done. > > Cheers, > > Christophe > thanks to both of you. |