[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Guile's DATAROOTDIR and DATADIR
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 20:46:02 +0300

> From: Mark H Weaver <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:25:46 -0400
> Having said this, I will admit that we've not maintained perfect ABI
> compatibility within 2.0.x, e.g. we've removed some obscure interfaces
> that were intended to be kept private, or were broken and could not be
> easily fixed, and that we believed to be unused in practice.  This is
> not ideal, and I think we will need to be much more strict about this in
> the future, as Guile becomes more widely used.
> In any case, to the extent that there's a problem here, the solution is
> to redouble our efforts to avoid ABI breakage.  The solution is most
> definitely *not* to have separate directories for every maintenance
> release.  The reason is that we want existing Guile programs compiled
> against 2.0.11 to benefit from the bug fixes in 2.0.12.
> Does that make sense?

It make sense if it indeed works in practice.  You seem to say there
are in fact ABI incompatibilities in the 2.0.x series, and if that's
indeed true, then the only way to avoid trouble is to rebuild and
reinstall all the packages that are linked against Guile, once I
install the latest Guile.  That is unfortunate, to say the least,
since Guile is already used in important GNU packages such as GDB and

Is it possible to publish the list of ABI incompatibilities between
2.0.11 and 2.0.12 specifically?


reply via email to

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