Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
asdf.texinfo 169 KiB
Newer Older
that are bundled with your Lisp distribution.
If you do have a few magic systems that come with your implementation
in a precompiled way such that one should only use the binary version
that goes with your distribution, like SBCL does,
then you should add them in the beginning of @code{wrapping-source-registry}.

@item
If you have magic systems as above, like SBCL does,
then we explicitly ask you to @emph{NOT} distribute
@file{asdf.asd} as part of those magic systems.
You should still include the file @file{asdf.lisp} in your source distribution
and precompile it in your binary distribution,
but @file{asdf.asd} if included at all,
should be secluded from the magic systems,
in a separate file hierarchy.
Alternatively, you may provide the system
after renaming it and its @file{.asd} file to e.g.
@code{asdf-ecl} and @file{asdf-ecl.asd}, or
@code{sb-asdf} and @file{sb-asdf.asd}.
Indeed, if you made @file{asdf.asd} a magic system,
then users would no longer be able to upgrade ASDF using ASDF itself
to some version of their preference that
they maintain independently from your Lisp distribution.

@item
If you do not have any such magic systems, or have other non-magic systems
that you want to bundle with your implementation,
then you may add them to the @code{wrapping-source-registry},
and you are welcome to include @file{asdf.asd} amongst them.
Non-magic systems should be at the back of the @code{wrapping-source-registry}
while magic systems are at the front.
@item
Please send us upstream any patches you make to ASDF itself,
so we can merge them back in for the benefit of your users
when they upgrade to the upstream version.


@section Issues with configuring ASDF

@subsection ``How can I customize where fasl files are stored?''

@xref{Controlling where ASDF saves compiled files}.

Note that in the past there was an add-on to ASDF called
@code{ASDF-binary-locations}, developed by Gary King.
That add-on has been merged into ASDF proper,
then superseded by the @code{asdf-output-translations} facility.

Note that use of @code{asdf-output-translations}
can interfere with one aspect of your systems
--- if your system uses @code{*load-truename*} to find files
(e.g., if you have some data files stored with your program),
then the relocation that this ASDF customization performs
is likely to interfere.
Use @code{asdf:system-relative-pathname} to locate a file
in the source directory of some system, and
use @code{asdf:apply-output-translations} to locate a file
whose pathname has been translated by the facility.
@subsection ``How can I wholly disable the compiler output cache?''

To permanently disable the compiler output cache
for all future runs of ASDF, you can:

@example
mkdir -p ~/.config/common-lisp/asdf-output-translations.conf.d/
echo ':disable-cache' > ~/.config/common-lisp/asdf-output-translations.conf.d/99-disable-cache.conf
@end example

This assumes that you didn't otherwise configure the ASDF files
(if you did, edit them again),
and don't somehow override the configuration at runtime
with a shell variable (see below) or some other runtime command
(e.g. some call to @code{asdf:initialize-output-translations}).

To disable the compiler output cache in Lisp processes
run by your current shell, try (assuming @code{bash} or @code{zsh})
(on Unix and cygwin only):

@example
export ASDF_OUTPUT_TRANSLATIONS=/:
@end example

To disable the compiler output cache just in the current Lisp process,
use (after loading ASDF but before using it):

@example
@section Issues with using and extending ASDF to define systems

@subsection ``How can I cater for unit-testing in my system?''

ASDF provides a predefined test operation, @code{test-op}.
@xref{Predefined operations of ASDF, test-op}.
The test operation, however, is largely left to the system definer to specify.
@code{test-op} has been
a topic of considerable discussion on the
@url{http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel,asdf-devel mailing list},
and on the
@url{https://launchpad.net/asdf,launchpad bug-tracker}.
Here are some guidelines:

@itemize
@item
For a given system, @var{foo}, you will want to define a corresponding
test system, such as @var{foo-test}.  The reason that you will want this
separate system is that ASDF does not out of the box supply components
that are conditionally loaded.  So if you want to have source files
(with the test definitions) that will not be loaded except when testing,
they should be put elsewhere.

@item
The @var{foo-test} system can be defined in an asd file of its own or
together with @var{foo}.  An aesthetic preference against cluttering up
the filesystem with extra asd files should be balanced against the
question of whether one might want to directly load @var{foo-test}.
Typically one would not want to do this except in early stages of
debugging.

@item
Record that testing is implemented by @var{foo-test}.  For example:
@example
(defsystem @var{foo}
   :in-order-to ((test-op (test-op @var{foo-test})))
   ....)

(defsystem @var{foo-test}
   :depends-on (@var{foo} @var{my-test-library} ...)
   ....)
@end example
@end itemize

This procedure will allow you to support users who do not wish to
install your test framework.

One oddity of ASDF is that @code{operate} (@pxref{Operations,operate})
does not return a value.  So in current versions of ASDF there is no
reliable programmatic means of determining whether or not a set of tests
has passed, or which tests have failed.  The user must simply read the
console output.  This limitation has been the subject of much
discussion.

@subsection ``How can I cater for documentation generation in my system?''
The ASDF developers are currently working to add a @code{doc-op}
to the set of predefined ASDF operations.
@xref{Predefined operations of ASDF}.
See also @url{https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/479470}.
@subsection ``How can I maintain non-Lisp (e.g. C) source files?''
See @code{cffi}'s @code{cffi-grovel}.
@anchor{report-bugs}
@subsection ``I want to put my module's files at the top level.  How do I do this?''
By default, the files contained in an asdf module go
in a subdirectory with the same name as the module.
However, this can be overridden by adding a @code{:pathname ""} argument
For example, here is how it could be done
in the spatial-trees ASDF system definition for ASDF 2:
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed

@example
(asdf:defsystem :spatial-trees
  :components
  ((:module base
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
            :components
            ((:file "package")
             (:file "basedefs" :depends-on ("package"))
             (:file "rectangles" :depends-on ("package"))))
   (:module tree-impls
            :depends-on (base)
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
            :components
            ((:file "r-trees")
             (:file "greene-trees" :depends-on ("r-trees"))
             (:file "rstar-trees" :depends-on ("r-trees"))
             (:file "rplus-trees" :depends-on ("r-trees"))
             (:file "x-trees" :depends-on ("r-trees" "rstar-trees"))))
   (:module viz
            :depends-on (base)
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
            :components
            ((:static-file "spatial-tree-viz.lisp")))
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
   (:module tests
            :depends-on (base)
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
            :components
            ((:static-file "spatial-tree-test.lisp")))
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
   (:static-file "LICENCE")
   (:static-file "TODO")))
@end example

All of the files in the @code{tree-impls} module are at the top level,
instead of in a @file{tree-impls/} subdirectory.
Note that the argument to @code{:pathname} can be either a pathname object or a string.
A pathname object can be constructed with the @file{#p"foo/bar/"} syntax,
but this is discouraged because the results of parsing a namestring are not portable.
A pathname can only be portably constructed with such syntax as
@code{#.(make-pathname :directory '(:relative "foo" "bar"))},
and similarly the current directory can only be portably specified as
@code{#.(make-pathname :directory '(:relative))}.
However, as of ASDF 2, you can portably use a string to denote a pathname.
The string will be parsed as a @code{/}-separated path from the current directory,
such that the empty string @code{""} denotes the current directory, and
@code{"foo/bar"} (no trailing @code{/} required in the case of modules)
portably denotes the same subdirectory as above.
When files are specified, the last @code{/}-separated component is interpreted
either as the name component of a pathname
(if the component class specifies a pathname type),
or as a name component plus optional dot-separated type component
(if the component class doesn't specifies a pathname type).
@subsection How do I create a system definition where all the source files have a .cl extension?
Starting with ASDF 2.014.14, you may just pass
the builtin class @code{cl-source-file.cl} as
the @code{:default-component-class} argument to @code{defsystem}:
(defsystem my-cl-system
  :default-component-class cl-source-file.cl
  ...)
Another builtin class @code{cl-source-file.lsp} is offered
for files ending in @file{.lsp}.

If you want to use a different extension
for which ASDF doesn't provide builtin support,
or want to support versions of ASDF
earlier than 2.014.14 (but later than 2.000),
you can define a class as follows:
;; Prologue: make sure we're using a sane package.
(defpackage :my-asdf-extension
   (:use :asdf :common-lisp)
   (:export #:cl-source-file.lis))
(in-package :my-asdf-extension)

(defclass cl-source-file.lis (cl-source-file)
@end lisp

Then you can use it as follows:
@lisp
(defsystem my-cl-system
  :default-component-class my-asdf-extension:cl-source-file.lis
  ...)
Of course, if you're in the same package, e.g. in the same file,
you won't need to use the package qualifier before @code{cl-source-file.lis}.
Actually, if all you're doing is defining this class
and using it in the same file without other fancy definitions,
you might skip package complications:
(in-package :asdf)
(defclass cl-source-file.lis (cl-source-file)
   ((type :initform "lis")))
It is possible to achieve the same effect
in a way that supports both ASDF 1 and ASDF 2,
but really, friends don't let friends use ASDF 1.
Please upgrade to ASDF 2.
In short, though: do same as above, but
@emph{before} you use the class in a @code{defsystem},
you also define the following method:

@lisp
(defmethod source-file-type ((f cl-source-file.lis) (s system))
  (declare (ignorable f s))
@comment FIXME: Add a FAQ about how to use a new system class...

@node  TODO list, Inspiration, FAQ, Top
Francois-Rene Rideau's avatar
Francois-Rene Rideau committed
@comment  node-name,  next,  previous,  up
Here is an old list of things to do,
in addition to the bugs that are now tracked on launchpad:
@url{https://launchpad.net/asdf}.

@section Outstanding spec questions, things to add

** packaging systems

*** manual page component?

** style guide for .asd files

You should either use keywords or be careful
with the package that you evaluate defsystem forms in.
Otherwise @code{(defsystem partition ...)}
being read in the @code{cl-user} package
will intern a @code{cl-user:partition} symbol,
which will then collide with the @code{partition:partition} symbol.

Actually there's a hairier packages problem to think about too.
@code{in-order-to} is not a keyword:
if you read @code{defsystem} forms in a package that doesn't use ASDF,
odd things might happen.


** extending defsystem with new options

You might not want to write a whole parser,
but just to add options to the existing syntax.
Reinstate @code{parse-option} or something akin.


** Diagnostics

A ``dry run'' of an operation can be made with the following form:

@lisp
(let ((asdf::*verbose-out* *standard-output*))
  (loop :for (op . comp) :in
    (asdf::traverse (make-instance '<operation-name> :force t)
                    (asdf:find-system <system-name>))
    :do (asdf:explain op comp)))
This uses unexported symbols.
What would be a nice interface for this functionality?
@section Missing bits in implementation

** reuse the same scratch package whenever a system is reloaded from disk

Have a package ASDF-USER instead of all these temporary packages?
Other possible interface: have a ``revert'' function akin to @code{make clean}.
(asdf:revert 'asdf:compile-op 'araneida)
would delete any files produced by @code{(compile-system :araneida)}.
Of course, it wouldn't be able to do much about stuff in the image itself.
@code{traverse}
There's a difference between a module's dependencies (peers)
and its components (children).
Perhaps there's a similar difference in operations?
For example, @code{(load "use") depends-on (load "macros")} is a peer,
whereas @code{(load "use") depends-on (compile "use")}
is more of a ``subservient'' relationship.
@node  Inspiration, Concept Index, TODO list, Top
@comment  node-name,  next,  previous,  up
@chapter Inspiration

@section mk-defsystem (defsystem-3.x)

We aim to solve basically the same problems as @code{mk-defsystem} does.
However, our architecture for extensibility
better exploits CL language features (and is documented),
and we intend to be portable rather than just widely-ported.
No slight on the @code{mk-defsystem} authors and maintainers is intended here;
that implementation has the unenviable task
of supporting pre-ANSI implementations, which is no longer necessary.

The surface defsystem syntax of asdf is more-or-less compatible with
@code{mk-defsystem}, except that we do not support
the @code{source-foo} and @code{binary-foo} prefixes
for separating source and binary files, and
we advise the removal of all options to specify pathnames.
The @code{mk-defsystem} code for topologically sorting
a module's dependency list was very useful.

@section defsystem-4 proposal

Marco and Peter's proposal for defsystem 4 served as the driver for
many of the features in here.  Notable differences are:

@itemize
@item
We don't specify output files or output file extensions
as part of the system.
If you want to find out what files an operation would create,
ask the operation.

@item
We don't deal with CL packages

If you want to compile in a particular package, use an @code{in-package} form
in that file (ilisp / SLIME will like you more if you do this anyway)

@item
There is no proposal here that @code{defsystem} does version control.

A system has a given version which can be used to check dependencies,
but that's all.
@end itemize

The defsystem 4 proposal tends to look more at the external features,
whereas this one centres on a protocol for system introspection.

@section kmp's ``The Description of Large Systems'', MIT AI Memo 801
Available in updated-for-CL form on the web at
Robert P. Goldman's avatar
Robert P. Goldman committed
@url{http://nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Large-Systems.html}
In our implementation we borrow kmp's overall @code{PROCESS-OPTIONS}
and concept to deal with creating component trees
from @code{defsystem} surface syntax.
[ this is not true right now, though it used to be and
probably will be again soon ]


@c -------------------


@node Concept Index, Function and Class Index, Inspiration, Top
@unnumbered Concept Index
@printindex cp

@node Function and Class Index, Variable Index, Concept Index, Top
@unnumbered Function and Class Index
@printindex fn

@node Variable Index,  , Function and Class Index, Top
@unnumbered Variable Index