Comment 3 for bug 620579

upgradability/reloading has a very low priority to me as a user.
my model is that asdf comes with the implementation, offers some interface, and is never upgraded unless I upgrade the implementation.

> you can't rely on cl-user for the symbols used in the boostrapping let form

huh? why can't you just assume ansi cl compatibility?
cl-user uses cl as per the standard - is there an implementation which does not have that?

> Packages should be relatively cheap to create

yes. the issue is more aesthetical than anything else.
clisp comes with 20 packages. asdf creates 3 more. I think this is excessive.
I don't see why a single "facility" would need more than 1 package.

> Maybe it's simpler to just export everything from ASDF (and keep the old name for backward compatibility?
> Or does noone rely on it?)

I think a vast majority of your users use asdf for what it is: defsystem facility.
people who want inter-implementation portability or extra (non-ansi) functionality use specialized packages.
I don't think it is wise to go down the slippery slope of feature creep. just offer a good defsystem; not