errors with ccl 1.9 rc1
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> 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.
It seems Policy supports this. I asked on #debian-mentors, and Paul Wise
pointed me to http://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
Policy 4.13 says in http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
4.13 Convenience copies of code
Some software packages include in their distribution convenience copies of
code from other software packages, generally so that users compiling from
source don't have to download multiple packages. Debian packages should
not make use of these convenience copies unless the included package is
explicitly intended to be used in this way. If the included code is
already in the Debian archive in the form of a library, the Debian
packaging should ensure that binary packages reference the libraries
already in Debian and the convenience copy is not used. If the included
code is not already in Debian, it should be packaged separately as a
prerequisite if possible. 
This seems to apply here. The proviso "unless the included package is
explicitly intended to be used in this way" is apparently intended for
cases where the included library does not exist in a separate standalone
If you guys think pointing CCL to the external Debian ASDF is reasonable,
I'll ask upstream. Let me know.
> 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?