Symbol "LENGTH64" not found in the VARINT package. #20
Comments
|
I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name for
compatibility.
What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my protobuf
package
uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
definition is
looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be regenerated,
since I've
made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken? For
the future
is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on protobuf?
Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the issue
title.
Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
What's the best way forward?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called "ryeboy" have
broken:
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <[email protected]>
wrote:
… I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name for
compatibility.
What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my protobuf
package
uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
definition is
looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be regenerated,
since I've
made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken? For
the future
is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on protobuf?
Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the issue
> title.
>
> Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
>
> What's the best way forward?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20>, or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have not been
updated yet.
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called "ryeboy"
have broken:
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name for
> compatibility.
> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my protobuf
> package
> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
> definition is
> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be regenerated,
> since I've
> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken? For
> the future
> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on protobuf?
>
> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the issue
> > title.
> >
> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
> >
> > What's the best way forward?
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
> > <
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
> .
>
|
|
The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling seems
to be
from March, 2020.
The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf code.
I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've made may
cause
breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file so
they depend
on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have not been
updated yet.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
> Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called "ryeboy"
> have broken:
>
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
>> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name for
>> compatibility.
>> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my protobuf
>> package
>> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
>> definition is
>> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
regenerated,
>> since I've
>> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken? For
>> the future
>> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on protobuf?
>>
>> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the
issue
>> > title.
>> >
>> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
>> >
>> > What's the best way forward?
>> >
>> > —
>> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
>> > <
>>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>>
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#20 (comment)>,
or
>> unsubscribe
>> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
>> .
>>
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch, which lags
behind.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown <[email protected]>
wrote:
… The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling seems
to be
from March, 2020.
The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf code.
I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've made may
cause
breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file so
they depend
on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
wrote:
> For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
> compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have not
been
> updated yet.
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called "ryeboy"
> > have broken:
> >
> >
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> > http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name for
> >> compatibility.
> >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
protobuf
> >> package
> >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
> >> definition is
> >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
> regenerated,
> >> since I've
> >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken?
For
> >> the future
> >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on protobuf?
> >>
> >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the
> issue
> >> > title.
> >> >
> >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
> >> >
> >> > What's the best way forward?
> >> >
> >> > —
> >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
> >> > <
> >>
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >> >
> >> > .
> >> >
> >>
> >> —
> >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >> <#20 (comment)>,
> or
> >> unsubscribe
> >> <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> >> .
> >>
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
I added back two functions that I renamed.
No promises that other changes since March have not caused other breakage.
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch, which lags
behind.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling seems
> to be
> from March, 2020.
>
> The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf code.
>
> I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've made
may
> cause
> breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file so
> they depend
> on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
> > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have not
> been
> > updated yet.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
> >
> > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
"ryeboy"
> > > have broken:
> > >
> > >
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> > >
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
***@***.***
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name
for
> > >> compatibility.
> > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
> protobuf
> > >> package
> > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a protobuf
> > >> definition is
> > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
> > regenerated,
> > >> since I've
> > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken?
> For
> > >> the future
> > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
protobuf?
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
***@***.***>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the
> > issue
> > >> > title.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
> > >> >
> > >> > What's the best way forward?
> > >> >
> > >> > —
> > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
> > >> > <
> > >>
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >> >
> > >> > .
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >> <#20 (comment)
>,
> > or
> > >> unsubscribe
> > >> <
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you commented.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#20 (comment)>,
or
> > unsubscribe
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***> wrote:
I added back two functions that I renamed.
No promises that other changes since March have not caused other breakage.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
wrote:
> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch, which
> lags
> behind.
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling
> seems
> > to be
> > from March, 2020.
> >
> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf code.
> >
> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've made
> may
> > cause
> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file so
> > they depend
> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have not
> > been
> > > updated yet.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
> "ryeboy"
> > > > have broken:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> > > >
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
> ***@***.***
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old name
> for
> > > >> compatibility.
> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
> > protobuf
> > > >> package
> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
> protobuf
> > > >> definition is
> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
> > > regenerated,
> > > >> since I've
> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has broken?
> > For
> > > >> the future
> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
> protobuf?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
> ***@***.***>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in
> the
> > > issue
> > > >> > title.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > —
> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
> > > >> > <
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >> >
> > > >> > .
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> —
> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >> <
> #20 (comment)>,
> > > or
> > > >> unsubscribe
> > > >> <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >
> > > >> .
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > <#20 (comment)>,
> or
> > > unsubscribe
> > > <
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#20 (comment)>,
> or
> > unsubscribe
> > <
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
> .
>
|
|
Also, the gtirb / grammatech folks say that have updated the branch that
Quicklisp uses.
If you can verify this, I'll remove LENGTH64 again.
Thanks!
…On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***> wrote:
The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I added back two functions that I renamed.
> No promises that other changes since March have not caused other breakage.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
>> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch, which
>> lags
>> behind.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling
>> seems
>> > to be
>> > from March, 2020.
>> >
>> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf
>> code.
>> >
>> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've
>> made may
>> > cause
>> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file
>> so
>> > they depend
>> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
>> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have
>> not
>> > been
>> > > updated yet.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
>> "ryeboy"
>> > > > have broken:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
>> > > >
>> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
>> ***@***.***
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old
>> name for
>> > > >> compatibility.
>> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
>> > protobuf
>> > > >> package
>> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
>> protobuf
>> > > >> definition is
>> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
>> > > regenerated,
>> > > >> since I've
>> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has
>> broken?
>> > For
>> > > >> the future
>> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
>> protobuf?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
>> ***@***.***>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in
>> the
>> > > issue
>> > > >> > title.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > —
>> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
>> thread.
>> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> > > >> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
>> > > >> > <
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > .
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> —
>> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> > > >> <
>> #20 (comment)>,
>> > > or
>> > > >> unsubscribe
>> > > >> <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>> > > >
>> > > >> .
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > —
>> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
>> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> > > <#20 (comment)>,
>> or
>> > > unsubscribe
>> > > <
>> >
>> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>> > >
>> > > .
>> > >
>> >
>> > —
>> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> > <#20 (comment)>,
>> or
>> > unsubscribe
>> > <
>> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>> >
>> > .
>> >
>>
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you commented.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#20 (comment)>,
>> or unsubscribe
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
>> .
>>
>
|
|
So the problem I have for Quicklisp is that installing multiple things with
manual make and shell commands is generally a no-go for Quicklisp-provided
libraries. That's one reason to include generated protobuf code - to avoid
having all users install protoc-gen-lisp.
But _I_ installed protoc-gen-lisp, to try to build in some way, and now
ryeboy fails with: First file chunk returned by plugin did not specify a
file name.
Do you know what that means and how it might be fixed?
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:03 PM Robert Brown <[email protected]>
wrote:
… Also, the gtirb / grammatech folks say that have updated the branch that
Quicklisp uses.
If you can verify this, I'll remove LENGTH64 again.
Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
>> I added back two functions that I renamed.
>> No promises that other changes since March have not caused other
breakage.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch, which
>>> lags
>>> behind.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling
>>> seems
>>> > to be
>>> > from March, 2020.
>>> >
>>> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf
>>> code.
>>> >
>>> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've
>>> made may
>>> > cause
>>> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf file
>>> so
>>> > they depend
>>> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***
>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
>>> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they have
>>> not
>>> > been
>>> > > updated yet.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
>>> "ryeboy"
>>> > > > have broken:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>>
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
>>> > > >
>>> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
>>> ***@***.***
>>> > >
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old
>>> name for
>>> > > >> compatibility.
>>> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
>>> > protobuf
>>> > > >> package
>>> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
>>> protobuf
>>> > > >> definition is
>>> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
>>> > > regenerated,
>>> > > >> since I've
>>> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has
>>> broken?
>>> > For
>>> > > >> the future
>>> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
>>> protobuf?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
>>> ***@***.***>
>>> > > >> wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in
>>> the
>>> > > issue
>>> > > >> > title.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing
projects?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > —
>>> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
>>> thread.
>>> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> > > >> > <#20>, or unsubscribe
>>> > > >> > <
>>> > > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > .
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> —
>>> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>>> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> > > >> <
>>> #20 (comment)>,
>>> > > or
>>> > > >> unsubscribe
>>> > > >> <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> .
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > —
>>> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
>>> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> > > <
#20 (comment)>,
>>> or
>>> > > unsubscribe
>>> > > <
>>> >
>>>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>>> > >
>>> > > .
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > —
>>> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> > <#20 (comment)
>,
>>> or
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > <
>>>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>>> >
>>> > .
>>> >
>>>
>>> —
>>> You are receiving this because you commented.
>>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> <#20 (comment)>,
>>> or unsubscribe
>>> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
>>> .
>>>
>>
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLJLIF4I3POPS6VLKPTSHKEELANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
I guess the protocol buffer should be built using ASDF, but that might be
tricky.
I don't know what the error means. Did you follow the instructions in the
protobuf README.md file?
Perhaps you are using a newer version of Google's protoc code than the one
I've last tested with.
…On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:53 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
So the problem I have for Quicklisp is that installing multiple things with
manual make and shell commands is generally a no-go for Quicklisp-provided
libraries. That's one reason to include generated protobuf code - to avoid
having all users install protoc-gen-lisp.
But _I_ installed protoc-gen-lisp, to try to build in some way, and now
ryeboy fails with: First file chunk returned by plugin did not specify a
file name.
Do you know what that means and how it might be fixed?
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:03 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Also, the gtirb / grammatech folks say that have updated the branch that
> Quicklisp uses.
> If you can verify this, I'll remove LENGTH64 again.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I added back two functions that I renamed.
> >> No promises that other changes since March have not caused other
> breakage.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch,
which
> >>> lags
> >>> behind.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown <
***@***.***
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are compiling
> >>> seems
> >>> > to be
> >>> > from March, 2020.
> >>> >
> >>> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated protobuf
> >>> code.
> >>> >
> >>> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes I've
> >>> made may
> >>> > cause
> >>> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf
file
> >>> so
> >>> > they depend
> >>> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane <
***@***.***
> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name for
> >>> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they
have
> >>> not
> >>> > been
> >>> > > updated yet.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
> >>> "ryeboy"
> >>> > > > have broken:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> >>> > > >
> >>>
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
> >>> ***@***.***
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the old
> >>> name for
> >>> > > >> compatibility.
> >>> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of my
> >>> > protobuf
> >>> > > >> package
> >>> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
> >>> protobuf
> >>> > > >> definition is
> >>> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would be
> >>> > > regenerated,
> >>> > > >> since I've
> >>> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has
> >>> broken?
> >>> > For
> >>> > > >> the future
> >>> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
> >>> protobuf?
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
> >>> ***@***.***>
> >>> > > >> wrote:
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error message
in
> >>> the
> >>> > > issue
> >>> > > >> > title.
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing
> projects?
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > —
> >>> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
> >>> thread.
> >>> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >>> > > >> > <#20>, or
unsubscribe
> >>> > > >> > <
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > .
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> —
> >>> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> >>> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >>> > > >> <
> >>> #20 (comment)>,
> >>> > > or
> >>> > > >> unsubscribe
> >>> > > >> <
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> .
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > —
> >>> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
> >>> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >>> > > <
> #20 (comment)>,
> >>> or
> >>> > > unsubscribe
> >>> > > <
> >>> >
> >>>
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >>> > >
> >>> > > .
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > —
> >>> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> >>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >>> > <
#20 (comment)
> >,
> >>> or
> >>> > unsubscribe
> >>> > <
> >>>
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >>> >
> >>> > .
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> You are receiving this because you commented.
> >>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> >>> <#20 (comment)
>,
> >>> or unsubscribe
> >>> <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLJLIF4I3POPS6VLKPTSHKEELANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMLVKCGSJ27IAOMF5TDSHTRI3ANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
There are two (competing?) protobuf efforts - protobufs (yours) and
cl-protobufs (from "qitab"). I installed protoc-gen-lisp from qitab. I
don't know if that's what generates the error or not.
Are the projects fundamentally incompatible on a single system?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:11 PM Robert Brown <[email protected]>
wrote:
… I guess the protocol buffer should be built using ASDF, but that might be
tricky.
I don't know what the error means. Did you follow the instructions in the
protobuf README.md file?
Perhaps you are using a newer version of Google's protoc code than the one
I've last tested with.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:53 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
wrote:
> So the problem I have for Quicklisp is that installing multiple things
with
> manual make and shell commands is generally a no-go for
Quicklisp-provided
> libraries. That's one reason to include generated protobuf code - to
avoid
> having all users install protoc-gen-lisp.
>
> But _I_ installed protoc-gen-lisp, to try to build in some way, and now
> ryeboy fails with: First file chunk returned by plugin did not specify a
> file name.
>
> Do you know what that means and how it might be fixed?
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:03 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, the gtirb / grammatech folks say that have updated the branch
that
> > Quicklisp uses.
> > If you can verify this, I'll remove LENGTH64 again.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I added back two functions that I renamed.
> > >> No promises that other changes since March have not caused other
> > breakage.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane <
***@***.***>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch,
> which
> > >>> lags
> > >>> behind.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown <
> ***@***.***
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are
compiling
> > >>> seems
> > >>> > to be
> > >>> > from March, 2020.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated
protobuf
> > >>> code.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes
I've
> > >>> made may
> > >>> > cause
> > >>> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf
> file
> > >>> so
> > >>> > they depend
> > >>> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane <
> ***@***.***
> > >
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name
for
> > >>> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they
> have
> > >>> not
> > >>> > been
> > >>> > > updated yet.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***
>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
> > >>> "ryeboy"
> > >>> > > > have broken:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> > >>> > > >
> > >>>
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
> > >>> ***@***.***
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the
old
> > >>> name for
> > >>> > > >> compatibility.
> > >>> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of
my
> > >>> > protobuf
> > >>> > > >> package
> > >>> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
> > >>> protobuf
> > >>> > > >> definition is
> > >>> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would
be
> > >>> > > regenerated,
> > >>> > > >> since I've
> > >>> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has
> > >>> broken?
> > >>> > For
> > >>> > > >> the future
> > >>> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
> > >>> protobuf?
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
> > >>> ***@***.***>
> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error
message
> in
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > issue
> > >>> > > >> > title.
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing
> > projects?
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >> > —
> > >>> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
> > >>> thread.
> > >>> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >>> > > >> > <#20>, or
> unsubscribe
> > >>> > > >> > <
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >> > .
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> —
> > >>> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > >>> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >>> > > >> <
> > >>> #20 (comment)
>,
> > >>> > > or
> > >>> > > >> unsubscribe
> > >>> > > >> <
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >> .
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > —
> > >>> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
> > >>> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >>> > > <
> > #20 (comment)>,
> > >>> or
> > >>> > > unsubscribe
> > >>> > > <
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > .
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > —
> > >>> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > >>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >>> > <
> #20 (comment)
> > >,
> > >>> or
> > >>> > unsubscribe
> > >>> > <
> > >>>
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >>> >
> > >>> > .
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> —
> > >>> You are receiving this because you commented.
> > >>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > >>> <
#20 (comment)
> >,
> > >>> or unsubscribe
> > >>> <
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >
> > >>> .
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#20 (comment)>,
or
> > unsubscribe
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLJLIF4I3POPS6VLKPTSHKEELANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMLVKCGSJ27IAOMF5TDSHTRI3ANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLMMLJNMCW557HTRI2TSHTTOTANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
.
|
|
I don't know. I've not tried the cl-protobuf package recently. They
use my ASDF code, so in principle they should be compatible at build
time. The programmer APIs may not be compatible.
…On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:15 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***> wrote:
There are two (competing?) protobuf efforts - protobufs (yours) and
cl-protobufs (from "qitab"). I installed protoc-gen-lisp from qitab. I
don't know if that's what generates the error or not.
Are the projects fundamentally incompatible on a single system?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 3:11 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I guess the protocol buffer should be built using ASDF, but that might be
> tricky.
> I don't know what the error means. Did you follow the instructions in the
> protobuf README.md file?
> Perhaps you are using a newer version of Google's protoc code than the one
> I've last tested with.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:53 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > So the problem I have for Quicklisp is that installing multiple things
> with
> > manual make and shell commands is generally a no-go for
> Quicklisp-provided
> > libraries. That's one reason to include generated protobuf code - to
> avoid
> > having all users install protoc-gen-lisp.
> >
> > But _I_ installed protoc-gen-lisp, to try to build in some way, and now
> > ryeboy fails with: First file chunk returned by plugin did not specify a
> > file name.
> >
> > Do you know what that means and how it might be fixed?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:03 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also, the gtirb / grammatech folks say that have updated the branch
> that
> > > Quicklisp uses.
> > > If you can verify this, I'll remove LENGTH64 again.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:06 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ryeboy project should be fixed. I sent in a pull request.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:30 PM Robert Brown ***@***.***
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I added back two functions that I renamed.
> > > >> No promises that other changes since March have not caused other
> > > breakage.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM Zach Beane <
> ***@***.***>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> By request, I'm not using the head of gtirb, I'm using a branch,
> > which
> > > >>> lags
> > > >>> behind.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Robert Brown <
> > ***@***.***
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > The gtirb project appears OK at HEAD. The version you are
> compiling
> > > >>> seems
> > > >>> > to be
> > > >>> > from March, 2020.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > The ryeboy package is broken. It has checked in generated
> protobuf
> > > >>> code.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I can provide a function for compatibility, but other changes
> I've
> > > >>> made may
> > > >>> > cause
> > > >>> > breakage at run time. The ryeboy folks need to modify their asdf
> > file
> > > >>> so
> > > >>> > they depend
> > > >>> > on a protobuf source file, not checked in generated Lisp code.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Zach Beane <
> > ***@***.***
> > > >
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > For me, it would be helpful if you could provide the old name
> for
> > > >>> > > compatibility. I filed bug reports with the projects but they
> > have
> > > >>> not
> > > >>> > been
> > > >>> > > updated yet.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Zach Beane ***@***.***
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > > Some grammatech projects (gtirb-related) and a project called
> > > >>> "ryeboy"
> > > >>> > > > have broken:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/ryeboy.html#ryeboy
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>>
> > http://report.quicklisp.org/2020-09-22/failure-report/gtirb.html#proto
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM Robert Brown <
> > > >>> ***@***.***
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >> I renamed the function length-uint64. I could provide the
> old
> > > >>> name for
> > > >>> > > >> compatibility.
> > > >>> > > >> What exactly has broken? I'm surprised that code outside of
> my
> > > >>> > protobuf
> > > >>> > > >> package
> > > >>> > > >> uses the varint package. Perhaps Lisp code generated from a
> > > >>> protobuf
> > > >>> > > >> definition is
> > > >>> > > >> looking for length64? In that case, ideally the code would
> be
> > > >>> > > regenerated,
> > > >>> > > >> since I've
> > > >>> > > >> made bug fixes recently to protobuf. How can I see what has
> > > >>> broken?
> > > >>> > For
> > > >>> > > >> the future
> > > >>> > > >> is there an easy way for me to know what packages depend on
> > > >>> protobuf?
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the alert.
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Zach Beane <
> > > >>> ***@***.***>
> > > >>> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> > Some projects have started to fail due to the error
> message
> > in
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> > > issue
> > > >>> > > >> > title.
> > > >>> > > >> >
> > > >>> > > >> > Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing
> > > projects?
> > > >>> > > >> >
> > > >>> > > >> > What's the best way forward?
> > > >>> > > >> >
> > > >>> > > >> > —
> > > >>> > > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
> > > >>> thread.
> > > >>> > > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >>> > > >> > <#20>, or
> > unsubscribe
> > > >>> > > >> > <
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMNL2FGRA2QQFWDNRR3SHD46DANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >>> > > >> >
> > > >>> > > >> > .
> > > >>> > > >> >
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> —
> > > >>> > > >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > >>> > > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >>> > > >> <
> > > >>> #20 (comment)
> >,
> > > >>> > > or
> > > >>> > > >> unsubscribe
> > > >>> > > >> <
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLISQ4UZLLAJCT5TJIDSHEEVDANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >> .
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > —
> > > >>> > > You are receiving this because you commented.
> > > >>> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >>> > > <
> > > #20 (comment)>,
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> > > unsubscribe
> > > >>> > > <
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMEG6D32SZFW6UNGQLSHEGCJANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > .
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > —
> > > >>> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > >>> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >>> > <
> > #20 (comment)
> > > >,
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> > unsubscribe
> > > >>> > <
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLP44CEJMOC2LZR5RS3SHEHMLANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > .
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> —
> > > >>> You are receiving this because you commented.
> > > >>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > >>> <
> #20 (comment)
> > >,
> > > >>> or unsubscribe
> > > >>> <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMMFU47ZH7KTMVZKORDSHEIZNANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > > >
> > > >>> .
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > <#20 (comment)>,
> or
> > > unsubscribe
> > > <
> >
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLJLIF4I3POPS6VLKPTSHKEELANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you commented.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#20 (comment)>, or
> > unsubscribe
> > <
> https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGVMLVKCGSJ27IAOMF5TDSHTRI3ANCNFSM4RWFO67Q
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#20 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPNLMMLJNMCW557HTRI2TSHTTOTANCNFSM4RWFO67Q>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Some projects have started to fail due to the error message in the issue title.
Is this a mistake in protobuf, or in the newly-failing projects?
What's the best way forward?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: