[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Any opposition to changing share/guile/X.Y.Z to share/guile/X.Y?

From: Mikael Djurfeldt
Subject: Re: Any opposition to changing share/guile/X.Y.Z to share/guile/X.Y?
Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:58:03 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
> > Hmm... shouldn't the libraries from different minor versions of Guile
> > have different version numbers (bumbed between versions) and therefore
> > be possible to install in parallel?
> I should have been more specific -- I meant the revision number here,
> what we call the MICRO version.  i.e. 1.6.1 vs 1.6.2.  Across those
> two, I wouldn't necessarily (if perhaps at all -- see other msg)
> expect the library version numbers to change.

Well, that's what I meant as well.

> For example, imagine the release was just a documentation update.
> > Regarding the binary: How about using similar conventions as for
> > emacs: guile symlinked to guile1.6.1
> Do we want to support multiple installed MICRO revisions?  i.e. do we
> want it to be possible to install guile 1.6.1 and guile 1.6.2 side by
> side?  I was presuming we didn't specifically care about that, but if
> we do, we probably can,

Marius and you have to have the final say about this.

Without having thoroughly thought about it, I'd say it would be
useful to be able to install parallel micro versions, the reason being
that you may trust a certain micro version, but would like to do
development on another.

> but the changes will be more substantial since we'll also have to
> start versioning the name of libguile, i.e. so that
> the .so development and .la dynamic linking files won't clobber each
> other.

Maybe that would be a great idea.  I've been trying to keep a
system-level production version of guile-1.4 installed under /usr/lib
in parallel with an experimental guile-1.7.0 under /usr/local/lib.

A real nuisance has been that the libtool-generated link flags contain
both -L /usr/lib and -L /usr/local/lib in a somewhat arbitrary order.
I tried to resolve this, but finally got so frustrated that I simply
moved away all libraries under /usr/lib while compiling guile-1.7.0...

> For Debian at least I was packaging things for now so that you can
> only have one guile-X.Y-dev package installed at a time.  To do
> anything different would require more upstream changes (including the
> above), and until/unless that happens, people should be able to get by
> by just switching out the -dev packages.

Are you sure, considering what I wrote above?

It seems to me that we'll have trouble as long as we don't include the
version in the library names...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]