Re: config.status has been broken by issue 5780 "Accept GUILE 2 without extra configure options"

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> > > > The following prints an error and directs the integrators
>> > > > into the right direction:
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> > > > index 29e4e5680f..80a34f7b09 100644
>> > > > --- a/configure.ac
>> > > > +++ b/configure.ac
>> > > > @@ -189,6 +189,11 @@ STEPMAKE_MSGFMT(REQUIRED)
>> > > >  STEPMAKE_TEXMF(REQUIRED)
>> > > >  STEPMAKE_TEXMF_DIRS(REQUIRED)

This would be the right thing for stuff 2.23.  For 2.21 this should
rather be a warning emitted *at the end* of the `configure` run so
that it is very visible.

>> > > What about "an error would be a nuisance when trying to have a
>> > > common configuration for both 2.20 and 2.21" was unclear?
>
> There will never be a shared configuration for both 2.20 and 2.21:
> Current master requires Python 3 which 2.20 not even attempts to be
> compatible with.

I think you misunderstand David.  I believe he is not talking about
technical 'sharing' but how a user compiles stuff given his or her
setup.  Ideally, the user setup is always the same.  However, we are
going to replace `guile-config` with `pkg-config`, which means a
disruption.

>> This would concern things like running Patchy, and also things like
>> checking out pretests of stable releases for system packages.  If
>> the spec files of the stable release fails mysteriously, most users
>> will give up.

Yes.  Assume that you are a new user and have everything set up to
compile 2.20.  Now you want to try 2.21.  You start the compilation
process, and you immediately get an error.  I agree with David that
this is not necessary.  A few lines of code in the `configure` script
can make `guile-devel` work, and people have the whole 2.21 cycle to
adjust their build scripts to use `pkg-config`.  In 2.23, those lines
get eventually removed.

This is not a big deal and should make happy everyone.

> I politely ask to take a step back and try to understand the point
> of view shared by Werner, Han-Wen and me.

Well, I changed my mind and now consider David's arguments as
convincing.


    Werner