From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Release now? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:54:31 -0600 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <873cm9oe9k.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87of50tdcz.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <873cmbpyij.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1046366347 20229 80.91.224.249 (27 Feb 2003 17:19:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:19:07 +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 18oRgS-0005FP-00 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:19:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oRNe-0006He-06 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:59:34 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oRJJ-0004kd-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oRJ7-0004Uf-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:54:54 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl093-098-016.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.98.16] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oRIm-0003z5-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:54:32 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F40559; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:54:31 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2A815D4DAD; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:54:31 -0600 (CST) Original-To: Greg Troxel In-Reply-To: (Greg Troxel's message of "27 Feb 2003 09:25:41 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1993 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1993 Greg Troxel writes: > But having a library compile-linked from one place and run-linked from > another seems to be asking for trouble, and I would prefer not to see > that complexity and associated unintended consequences imposed on > everyone because Debian chooses not to use -rpath. (I realize libtool > does this for running uninstalled code, but I think that's different.) I'm somewhat tempted to try it in HEAD, and then get as many people as possible to attempt a build/install. If it works on a bunch of platforms, and if we can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work in general, this might be a way to have one approach that works everywhere. > I think it is important to keep separate notions of scalability > imposed by such a naming scheme and the scalability of the > underlying reality. Here, the reality is messy, and the naming > scheme means that various combinations can coexist peacefully. It > enables having 12 versions at once, but that is the underlying > reality, unless some are prohibited. Of course, not having a > mechanism has the effect of prohibiting this. To me, it seems like the -L/usr/lib/guile/VERSION solution would allow the same result, but without the library naming issues. You'd have: /usr/lib/libguile.so.9* /usr/lib/libguile.so.12* /usr/lib/libguile.so.14* /usr/lib/guile/1.4/libguile.so -> /usr/lib/libguile.so.9.0.1 /usr/lib/guile/1.6/libguile.so -> /usr/lib/libguile.so.12.0.4 /usr/lib/guile/1.8/libguile.so -> /usr/lib/libguile.so.14.0.2 Just to be sure I understand, is your objection to this primarily a concern with it being an untested approach? I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel