On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 07:59:35PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote: > Josh Elsasser <j...@elsasser.org> writes: > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 08:00:41PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote: > >> Kenneth R Westerback <kwesterb...@rogers.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:16:31PM -0700, Josh Elsasser wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 09:29:40AM +0200, J?r?mie Courr?ges-Anglas > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > So instead of struggling with clisp, let's just update sbcl first. > >> >> > Regress tests results and diff below. I'm postponing clisp for now. > >> >> > > >> >> > More tests on amd64 / ok? > >> >> > >> >> There should be a build-time (and probably runtime) dependency on gmp, > >> >> or else the gmp contrib should be disabled. I'm not sure if it's right > >> >> to enforce a runtime dependency when few users will use sb-gmp, but it > >> >> would also be annoying to start splitting off contribs into separate > >> >> packages. > >> > >> gmp is opened using load-shared-object (dlopen), the build system > >> doesn't search for it (but we should keep in mind that one day it > >> might use sb-grovel to detect the size and signedness of gmp objects). > >> Given this, plus the fact that it is a relatively new and probably > >> seldom used module, I don't think adding gmp to bdeps/rdeps would add > >> much value. > >> > >> What I should have done, though, is to put gmp in TEST_DEPENDS. > >> > >> Josh, do you agree with this? > > > > Will the port build correctly without gmp installed? I would assume > > that the sb-gmp contrib would fail to build, and then the port bail > > out when files from the plist are missing. I'm fine with leaving it > > out of the runtime deps, but think that it should be declared as a > > build dep if it's really needed then. > > I've just tested yesterday evening, with the gmp headers and libs > made unreachable (it's a bit hard to pkg_delete gmp since it's widely > used). sb-gmp is still built and installed. > > As krw@ pointed out privately, my last diff had some unwanted .fasl in > the PLIST (the ones generated at the ''make test'' step). I should have > checked twice, sorry. > > Here's a more correct diff. Please give it a shot...
Working find on amd64 now! ok (again) krw@ .... Ken
