Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> What do you think about the moving the SBCL / ECL definitions to package
> outputs?

I thought about having the sources, SBCL compiled files and ECL compiled
files respectively in the 'out', 'sbcl' and 'ecl' packages outputs;
however I thought there could be issues in some cases.

For example, if a profile contained cl-xyz and cl-xyz:sbcl, and if the
user tried to load this xyz system in ECL, then I think ECL would try
to compile the system and write the compiled files to cl-xyz:sbcl and
fail because it is read-only. That's because cl-xyz:sbcl contains the
ASDF configuration indicating "the compiled files for cl-xyz are in
cl-xyz:sbcl", and ECL is going to read that configuration.

It might be possible to have smarter ASDF configuration files behaving
differently depending on the lisp implementation running, but I have not
investigated this for the moment.


> About Osicat: There are grovel left overs that could be removed.
> The former build system used to do that automatically.  Maybe we can
> restore this behaviour?

The former build system deleted everything in 'lib/common-lisp/' except
the bundle. We can't do that anymore because now the fasl files that we
have to keep are in a directory tree whose structure we can't really
predict. It depends how the sources are organized.
Maybe we could just add a 'cleanup-left-overs' phase in the definition
of the packages where some left-overs can be deleted.