From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: guile-lib - devel branch - patch 4 of 11 Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 05:36:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83vb053s9r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160715224305.432410c3@capac> <83wpkm5c1u.fsf@gnu.org> <20160716173402.014d9a12@capac> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1468723015 12632 80.91.229.3 (17 Jul 2016 02:36:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 02:36:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: David Pirotte Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 17 04:36:50 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwl-00042L-PV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 04:36:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39875 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwh-00037Q-MF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:36:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwR-00037K-Qw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:36:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwN-0008I1-M3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwN-0008Hs-IA; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:36:23 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1265 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bObwL-0006d9-Pv; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:36:22 -0400 In-reply-to: <20160716173402.014d9a12@capac> (message from David Pirotte on Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:34:02 -0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18552 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:34:02 -0300 > From: David Pirotte > Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org > > nice to see progress on MinGW, congrat! Thanks. > > > * configure.ac: Adding a copyright; bumping prereq -> 2.69 > > > Why is that a good idea? > > Why not? > 2.69 is the latest stable, available since April 2012 > > > Are there any features Guile needs that older versions don't support? > > It is not a just question of feature, but about running the same version [or higher] > then the one used to check, distcheck... Why would we want to even try to support any > previous version but the latest stable here? Because people might have older versions installed, and it's a nuisance to have to upgrade unrelated tools in your development environment just because you need to build a newer version of Guile. Besides, other packages might required older versions. > Autotool chain related issue/bugs can be very tedious to track down and solve, and > requiring users to install the latest stable versions, guarantee they won't have any > surprise on that side, and saves us precious time, we have other things to do. If there are known problems with older versions that get in the way, I agree. Are there? If there are no known problems that interfere with maintaining Guile, I think refraining from the above will be nicer to our users.