From: Joe Knapka
Subject: asdf-install problem with ECL on Linux
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:56:48 +0000
Message-ID: <QW9Kg.7197$o42.601@tornado.texas.rr.com>

Hi everyone,

Sorry for the bother; my CL-fu is not yet up to figuring this out.

I have installed asdf-install under ECL 0.9i environment on a
Linux (FC2) machine, following the instructions here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf-install/tutorial/index.html.
ECL appears to be working OK; specifically, (read) seems to work
fine when run from the REPL.  However, when I try to
(asdf-install:install :anything-at-all), I get the "Install where?"
prompt; then, no matter what number I enter, I get:

  NIL is not of type NUMBER.
  Broken at ASDF-INSTALL-INSTALL

I followed the code in installer.lisp to the place where this
prompt occurs, and it is simply calling (read) and returning
the value, I believe.  However, I don't yet grok LOOP, so it's
possible I'm completely wrong about that.

Any clues?

Many thanks,

-- JK

From: Joe Knapka
Subject: Re: asdf-install problem with ECL on Linux
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:27:05 +0000
Message-ID: <J7cKg.7202$o42.3449@tornado.texas.rr.com>

Never mind; it appears asdf-install is not supported
on ECL :-(

-- JK

Joe Knapka wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Sorry for the bother; my CL-fu is not yet up to figuring this out.
> 
> I have installed asdf-install under ECL 0.9i environment on a
> Linux (FC2) machine, following the instructions here:
> http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf-install/tutorial/index.html.
> ECL appears to be working OK; specifically, (read) seems to work
> fine when run from the REPL.  However, when I try to
> (asdf-install:install :anything-at-all), I get the "Install where?"
> prompt; then, no matter what number I enter, I get:
> 
>  NIL is not of type NUMBER.
>  Broken at ASDF-INSTALL-INSTALL
> 
> I followed the code in installer.lisp to the place where this
> prompt occurs, and it is simply calling (read) and returning
> the value, I believe.  However, I don't yet grok LOOP, so it's
> possible I'm completely wrong about that.
> 
> Any clues?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> -- JK