From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: packaging the add-on libs... Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:12:46 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20021010071246.GA29109@www> References: <87vg4aevgx.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1034233212 21635 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2002 07:00:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17zXIn-0005cd-00 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:00:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zXEq-0007B7-00; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:56:04 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zXEO-0006nP-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:55:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17zXEL-0006kl-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:55:35 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17zXEL-0006kd-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:55:33 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5002) id 092F81049B8; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:12:47 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Rob Browning Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vg4aevgx.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i 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:1506 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1506 On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:03:42AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > > I spoke with Marius a little while back about some of the complexities > involved in properly managing the versioning of our add-on libs [...] [snip] > As an example, say libguile13 ships with libguile-foo-v-1 and > libguile-bar-v-7, and libguile14 ships with libguile-foo-v-2 and > libguile-bar-v-7. [snip] > [the system] would be using libguile13 > via foo and libguile14 > via bar. > > One clear solution might be to just establish the convention that you > always embed the libguile major version number in the add-on lib's > name. [snip] > libguile12-srfi-srfi-4-v-1 > libguile12-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-3 > libguile12-foo-bar-v-4 Looks viable to me (but not excitingly beautiful, mind you ;) At the risk of boring you all (or even of being flamed out of the list ;-) I'd like to repeat what has been (or is being) discussed in another thread. The Big Guys (those with the P in the name, you remember) have version-dependent [1] subdirectories where they stuff the modules into which `belong' to the interpreter [2]. This is a strategy also followed by Emacs. I think this approach might minimize the problems you expose above. Of course, Marius is right in not wanting to introduce gratuitous dependencies and trying to distribute modules which are usable as either guile extensions or as shared libs on their own. But those shouldn't care about which guile version they are linked against (or even whether there is guile around at all), and I'd expect them to provide some (even if stripped down) functionality in any case. --------- [1] Dependent on the version of the main interpreter, that is. [2] I see two criteria to decide whether a module `belongs' to the interpreter: (a) it cares enough about the version of the interpreter it gets (dependencies on the API or ABI), and (b) it doesn't make much sense (or wouldn't even work) without *some* version of the interpreter (e.g. a debugger or profiler for guile). Note that (a) is stronger -- still I'd plea to stuff modules satisfiyng (b) into a guile-specific (maybe not version-specific) directory. Note that your example above libguile-foo-v-1 satifies (a). Hope I've been clear Thanks -- tomas _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel