Re: guile-lib - devel branch - patch 4 of 11

[David Pirotte <david@altosw.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2240 bytes --]

Hello Eli,

> > Don't you understand? How could I possibly answer that quiz, since it's been 4
> > years I use 2.69? You can't tell for sure just because there has been no
> > complain: you can only tell for sure if someone you 'trust' check with what ever
> > version you'd like to use.  

> Problems in past versions of development tools are described in the
> documentation, and if that's not enough, the maintainers of the tools
> can be asked about them.  There should be no need to learn about that
> from personal experience alone.

I totally disagree with your last sentence, as a consequence of both what I've been
teached and what my experience 'told' me. So, if you have a well isolated
environment using an earlier version of autoconf and automake 1.14, I'll trust you.

Besides, should I agree with you, but I don't, I still have absolutely no time and no
interest to read about a 5y doc and ask maintainers quiz about 5y old version of
these tools.

> > Besides, 'users' who locally manually install and compile GDB probably know a lot
> > more then I on the subject :)  

> I don't think the fact that I build my own GDB means my time is cheap
> and should be disregarded.

I never implied that, this is a very unfair statement: you are the one who ask me to
spend my time to read and talk to maintainers about a more then 4y tool and doc.

At the very most, all you have to do is to locally edit the guile-lib configure.ac
and change AC_PREREQ(2.69) to what ever version you use and 'pass':  that does take
any time.

>   AC_PREREQ(2.69)
> 
> even though an older version would do, is IMO not a good idea.

This has nothing to do with an 'idea', it's about what we can guarantee: as I said
above, it's not ok for me to 'just' read, and if you can test 'make distcheck' and
tells me it's ok, using an earlier version of autoconf and automake 1.14, I'll trust
you.

> And if you still disagree, let's leave it at that.  I'm not speaking
> for the Guile project, so my opinion can be easily overridden.

I don't speak in the name of Guile either, I am contributor. Note that this 
is Guile-Lib, not Guile (not that it would change my position wrt this, but...).

Thanks,
David

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]