From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: guile-snarf writes to $srcdir, which is not kosher Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:50:34 -0700 Sender: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87bscvjez9.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <873cy6f8av.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87vgazuun3.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87wuuy82a5.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019602646 8388 127.0.0.1 (23 Apr 2002 22:57:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mvo@zagadka.ping.de, bug-guile@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 1709Dx-0002BB-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:57:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1709Dl-00072V-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:57:13 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u5-c4a-a-172.crlsca.adelphia.net ([24.48.214.172] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1709BR-0006oX-00 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:54:49 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17097K-0006se-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:50:34 -0700 Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <87wuuy82a5.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:42:58 -0500) Errors-To: bug-guile-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:170 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:170 From: Rob Browning Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:42:58 -0500 Depends on the problem. For example, the recent library name changes relating to libltdl/dlopen issues may or may not belong in HEAD, but they're critical for 1.6. the recent changes may or may not belong in HEAD but the questions i'm asking are: (1) what *does* belong in HEAD? (2) how does the 1.6 library handling relate to (1)? Since it's very likely we'll choose a different long-term solution for this problem, and we won't know until we have the discussion, in my judgement there was little point in trying to integrate the changes into HEAD right now. of course these things follow. i'm not questioning the consequence of the approach, but the wisdom of using that approach in the first place, which seems backwards and make-work-ful to me. thi _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile