GNU bug report logs - #56334
Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of compile-system?

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:18:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 56334 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 56334 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 10:18:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guix <at> gnu.org. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 10:18:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Cc: glv <at> posteo.net
Subject: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:16:53 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
While trying to package

    https://github.com/s-expressionists/Cleavir

I hit a strange issue in which it would fail to compile, while calling
`asdf:load-system' locally worked.

Then I realized that our asdf-build-system/sbcl uses
`asdf:compile-system' instead of `asdf:load-system'.

From the ASDF doc:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
This will make sure all the files in the system are compiled, but not
necessarily load any of them in the current image; on most systems, it
will _not_ load all compiled files in the current image.  This function
exists for symmetry with 'load-system' but is not recommended unless you
are writing build scripts and know what you're doing.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

So should we really use it?

By the way this _may_ be related to the issue we've got with loading the
tests of some packages, like sbcl-jonathan:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
      ;; Tests fail with: Component JONATHAN-ASD::JONATHAN-TEST not found,
      ;; required by #<SYSTEM "jonathan">. Why?
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Recipe to reproduce:

- git clone https://github.com/s-expressionists/Cleavir
- cd Cleavir
- guix shell sbcl sbcl-acclimation sbcl-concrete-syntax-tree sbcl-closer-mop -- sbcl
- (asdf:initialize-source-registry `(:source-registry (:tree ,(uiop:getcwd)) :inherit-configuration))
- (asdf:compile-system :cleavir-abstract-interpreter)

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
debugger invoked on a SB-PCL:CLASS-NOT-FOUND-ERROR in thread
#<THREAD "main thread" RUNNING {100B598173}>:
  There is no class named CLEAVIR-ABSTRACT-INTERPRETER:STRATEGY.

Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:EXIT) to exit from SBCL.

restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
  0: [TRY-RECOMPILING              ] Recompile control and try loading it again
  1: [RETRY                        ] Retry
                                     loading FASL for #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "cleavir-abstract-interpreter" "control">.
  2: [ACCEPT                       ] Continue, treating
                                     loading FASL for #<CL-SOURCE-FILE "cleavir-abstract-interpreter" "control">
                                     as having been successful.
  3:                                 Retry ASDF operation.
  4: [CLEAR-CONFIGURATION-AND-RETRY] Retry ASDF operation after resetting the
                                     configuration.
  5:                                 Retry ASDF operation.
  6:                                 Retry ASDF operation after resetting the
                                     configuration.
  7: [ABORT                        ] Exit debugger, returning to top level.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

And then

- (asdf:load-system :cleavir-abstract-interpreter)

works like a charm!

Thoughts?

Pierre
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:31:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:13:30 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> While trying to package
>
>     https://github.com/s-expressionists/Cleavir
>
> I hit a strange issue in which it would fail to compile, while calling
> `asdf:load-system' locally worked.
>
> Then I realized that our asdf-build-system/sbcl uses
> `asdf:compile-system' instead of `asdf:load-system'.
>
> From the ASDF doc:
>
> This will make sure all the files in the system are compiled, but not
> necessarily load any of them in the current image; on most systems, it
> will _not_ load all compiled files in the current image.  This function
> exists for symmetry with 'load-system' but is not recommended unless you
> are writing build scripts and know what you're doing.
>
>
> So should we really use it?
>
> By the way this _may_ be related to the issue we've got with loading the
> tests of some packages, like sbcl-jonathan:
>
>       ;; Tests fail with: Component JONATHAN-ASD::JONATHAN-TEST not found,
>       ;; required by #<SYSTEM "jonathan">. Why?
>
> [...]

Hi,

The cl-gamepad package has a similar issue (and a custom build phase
using load-system instead of compile-system as a workaround).

If the doc of ASDF indicates that load-system is the preferred way to
compile systems, we should probably do that, and remove current
workarounds and check if everything is still working.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:46:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #11 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:45:49 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Do you have time to try it out?
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:35:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #14 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:22:04 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Do you have time to try it out?

Not right now, as I'm about to take a vacation.

The main change is a one-liner in the 'compile-systems' function in
"guix/build/lisp-utils.scm"; that would be quick.
However recompiling all the Lisp packages and finding which of them
could be simplified thanks to the change would take more time...

So, if you have the time, go for it.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:31:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>, 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: glv <at> posteo.net
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:30:10 +0200
Am Freitag, dem 01.07.2022 um 12:16 +0200 schrieb Pierre Neidhardt:
> [...]
> 
> From the ASDF doc:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> This will make sure all the files in the system are compiled, but not
> necessarily load any of them in the current image; on most systems,
> it will _not_ load all compiled files in the current image.  This
> function exists for symmetry with 'load-system' but is not
> recommended *unless you are writing build scripts* and know what
> you're doing.
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> So should we really use it?
In this case, I'd argue that we *are* the build script and that
packagers know what they're doing when they override build in case that
asdf:compile-system fails.  Unless I'm wrong, we're not actually
interested in loading all compiled files into the current image, are
we?

Cheers




Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:44:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>,
 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: glv <at> posteo.net
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:43:29 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Liliana,

It's tempting to think that Guix packages are good candidates for "build
scripts", but in the face of it, it may very well be that ASDF authors
had something completely different in mind.

In any case, asdf:compile-system seems to be underused to the point that
barely anyone beside Guix packagers ever experience it.

Cheers!
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:47:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #23 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:46:51 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Guillaume,

I gave it a go and your suggestion indeed cuts it for cleavir and
cl-gamepad.

It did not fix it for the tests though.

I did some more testing, and this is what I found out on one of the
failing systems (cl-reexport): from a --pure sbcl repl, if I load the
.asd files manually then run test-system, I can reproduce the issue.

However, if I run

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
 (asdf:initialize-source-registry
    `(:source-registry (:tree ,(uiop:getcwd))
                       :inherit-configuration))
  (asdf:test-system :cl-reexport)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

then it works!

In other words, I believe that `asdf:load-asd' is yet another under-used
ASDF function, and we should probably go with the officially recommended
way, namely adding the source folder to the ASDF registry.

Thoughts?

I'll try it out then send a patch.

Cheers!
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:50:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #26 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:40:44 +0000
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Hi Guillaume,
>
> I gave it a go and your suggestion indeed cuts it for cleavir and
> cl-gamepad.
>
> It did not fix it for the tests though.
>
> I did some more testing, and this is what I found out on one of the
> failing systems (cl-reexport): from a --pure sbcl repl, if I load the
> .asd files manually then run test-system, I can reproduce the issue.
>
> However, if I run
>
>  (asdf:initialize-source-registry
>     `(:source-registry (:tree ,(uiop:getcwd))
>                        :inherit-configuration))
>   (asdf:test-system :cl-reexport)
>
> then it works!
>
> In other words, I believe that `asdf:load-asd' is yet another under-used
> ASDF function, and we should probably go with the officially recommended
> way, namely adding the source folder to the ASDF registry.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I'll try it out then send a patch.
>
> Cheers!

I think using the 'initialize-source-registry' technique instead of
'load-asd' would also make the '#:asd-files' and '#:test-asd-file'
arguments of the build system unnecessary, so they could be removed.




Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Fri, 01 Jul 2022 17:08:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #29 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:07:20 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Exactly, I already wrote the patch that did! :)

Will send soon, need to do some more testing.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Sat, 02 Jul 2022 10:18:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:17:35 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Robert Goldman from ASDF found out why the "COMPONENT not found" issue happens:

https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/issues/119#note_9808

So either we fix most of the Prove-depending libraries, or we just do
what's expected from every one, that is, add the directory to the ASDF
registries.

The latter is much easier of course...
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:27:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:19:53 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Robert Goldman from ASDF found out why the "COMPONENT not found" issue happens:
>
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/issues/119#note_9808
>
> So either we fix most of the Prove-depending libraries, or we just do
> what's expected from every one, that is, add the directory to the ASDF
> registries.
>
> The latter is much easier of course...

As adding the build directory to ASDF's registry is easier and also
simplifies asdf-build-system, would should do that. And we could still
open issues upstream for libraries that are starting their test suites
in a wrong way.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:19:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #38 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:18:19 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
I found a blocker: Some StumpWM contribs like sbcl-stumpwm kbd-layout
make calls at the top level which expect a running session of StumpWM,
and thus asd:load-system will fail on them, while asdf:compile-system
used to work.

Suggestion: add an option to our build system to choose between
asdf:load-system and asdf:compile-system.  We default to
asdf:load-system and use asdf:compile-system in stumpwm-contrib.

Thoughts?
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:58:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #41 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 21:57:42 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Find the first draft attached.  Do not merge, we need to figure out what
to do with sbcl-stumpwm-kbd-layouts.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[0000-cover-letter.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0001-guix-build-Switch-from-asdf-compile-system-to-asdf-l.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0002-build-system-asdf-Let-ASDF-locate-the-.asd-files.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0003-gnu-sbcl-cl-gamepad-Remove-asdf-compile-system-worka.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0004-gnu-Remove-obsolete-references-to-asd-files-and-test.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0005-gnu-quri-Remove-obsolete-test-workaround.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0006-gnu-sbcl-cl-reexport-Remove-obsolete-test-workaround.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0007-gnu-Add-legion.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0008-gnu-sbcl-jonathan-Fix-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0009-gnu-sbcl-cl-irc-Fix-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0010-gnu-sbcl-spatial-trees-Build-spatial-trees.nss-and-f.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0011-gnu-sbcl-lisp-namespace-Enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0012-gnu-sbcl-cl-heap-Re-enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0013-gnu-sbcl-vas-string-metrics-Re-enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0014-gnu-sbcl-hdf5-cffi-Enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0015-gnu-Add-mw-equiv.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0016-gnu-sbcl-quantile-estimator-Enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0017-gnu-sbcl-cl-online-learning-Remove-unnecessary-argum.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0018-gnu-sbcl-jzon-Enable-tests.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Tue, 05 Jul 2022 08:57:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #44 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:56:49 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
While we are rebuilding the Lisp world, I suggest we remove Coreutils
from the SBCL closure since it's only needed on LispWorks and on
non-Linux:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(add-after 'install 'remove-coreutils-references
           ;; They are only useful on non-Linux, non-SBCL.
           (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
             (let* ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out"))
                    (share-dir (string-append out "/share/sbcl/")))
               (substitute* (string-append share-dir "src/code/run-program.lisp")
                 (("\\(run-program \".*uname\"")
                  "(run-program \"uname\""))
               (substitute* (string-append share-dir "contrib/asdf/asdf.lisp")
                 (("\\(\".*/usr/bin/env\"")
                  "(\"/usr/bin/env\""))
               (substitute* (string-append share-dir "contrib/asdf/uiop.lisp")
                 (("\\(\".*/usr/bin/env\"")
                  "(\"/usr/bin/env\""))

               #t)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:21:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #47 received at 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 18:19:54 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
I've pushed the SBCL closure size reduction.

I'll be the road for a while, unable to work on this patch, so if anyone
wants to work on it and merge, please go ahead :)

Left to do:

- Suggestion: add a keyword to choose between asdf:compile-system and
  asdf:load-system (default should be asdf:load-system).
- Make sure sbcl-stumpwm-kbd-layouts usees asdf:compile-system.
- Rebuild the Lisp world to test.

Cheers!
Pierre
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Reply sent to Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:57:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>:
bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:57:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #52 received at 56334-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 56334-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:49:18 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> I'll be the road for a while, unable to work on this patch, so if anyone
> wants to work on it and merge, please go ahead :)
>
> Left to do:
>
> - Suggestion: add a keyword to choose between asdf:compile-system and
>   asdf:load-system (default should be asdf:load-system).
> - Make sure sbcl-stumpwm-kbd-layouts usees asdf:compile-system.
> - Rebuild the Lisp world to test.

I added a 'asd-operation' keyword parameter with a default value of
"load-system", and I used it in the package definition of
sbcl-stumpwm-kbd-layouts to use "compile-system" instead.

Patches pushed as 6b5ef03a2582ab23228478018fd356e17db1daea and
following.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#56334; Package guix. (Thu, 04 Aug 2022 14:02:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #55 received at 56334-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 56334-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Should asdf-build-system/sbcl use load-system instead of
 compile-system?
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 16:01:12 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Excellent, thanks a lot! :)
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Fri, 02 Sep 2022 11:24:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

This bug report was last modified 1 year and 208 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.