errors with ccl 1.9 rc1

[Faheem Mitha]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, Christoph Egger wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Faheem Mitha <faheem at faheem.info> writes:
>> I'm not sure what to do about it, but bad interactions do concern
>> Debian, I think. BTW, why do all Debian CL packages depend on cl-asdf?
>> I think that is a misfeature, because it makes it difficult for users
>> to use their preferred ASDF version.

> Because all these cl-* packages "need" asdf. Can't the ccl one just be
> made to work with debian cl-asdf? It just going to be pain with
> everything shipping its own asdf (I know most other stuff does as well
> :-(

Well, my point is that since the implementations now ship their own ASDF, 
then the Debian ASDF is not necessary, since users can choose to use the 
internal ASDF shipped by their implementation.

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not for implementations to ship 
their own copy of ASDF, I would have thought probably not. One possibility 
is (no idea whether this is a good idea or a bad idea) to remove the 
internal copy of ASDF from CCL and patch upstream to point the 
implentation's `require` function to the external ASDF. The CCL upstream 
at least probably won't care, I think. This would also have the advantage 
that the ASDF used could be kept up to date.

BTW, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1120998

I don't understand why ASDF is attempting to upgrade itself like this. 
I've never heard of such a thing before. Do any of you understand why?

                                                        Regards, Faheem