From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sergey Poznyakoff Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Release Guile, now ;-) [was:] Re: GC rewrite, first version. Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:29:19 +0300 Organization: Farlep-Internet Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200208021729.g72HTJb30159@Mirddin.farlep.net> References: <87n0s572fd.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028310636 2522 127.0.0.1 (2 Aug 2002 17:50:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rm@fabula.de, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Dirk Herrmann , guile-devel@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 17agZN-0000eX-00 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:50:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17agZs-0002PX-00; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:51:04 -0400 Original-Received: from ns1.farlep.net ([213.130.0.1] helo=Mirddin.farlep.net) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17agYu-0002JW-00 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:50:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Mirddin.farlep.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Mirddin.farlep.net with ESMTP id g72HTJb30159; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:29:19 +0300 Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:36:38 CDT." <87n0s572fd.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:933 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:933 > > then any application could easily override them in its config.h > > Yeah, but these shouldn't even be there. Agreed, I've proposed the #ifdef approach only as a temporary solution. > For now, can you tell which defines are the real trouble makers? Are > there others than PACKAGE_STRING? I'm wondering if we can just fix > the major offenders for now and then fix it *right* for 1.6.2. The major ones are: PACKAGE_NAME, PACKAGE_TARNAME, PACKAGE_VERSION, PACKAGE_BUGREPORT. The HAVE_.* defines just generate lots of redefinition warning, but apart from that they don't do any harm. Regards, Sergey _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel