From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Skarda <0rfelyus@ucw.cz> Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Adding stuff to the core distro (was Re: Infix syntax) Date: 17 Oct 2002 03:25:52 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035025266 21745 80.91.224.249 (19 Oct 2002 11:01:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:01:06 +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 182rLq-0005e4-00 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:01:02 +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 182haN-00075c-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:35:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 182hZd-0006oZ-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:34:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 182hZb-0006o4-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:34:36 -0400 Original-Received: from gnudist.gnu.org ([199.232.41.7]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 182bkM-000879-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:21:18 -0400 Original-Received: from stateless1.tiscali.cz ([213.235.135.70] helo=mail.tiscali.cz) by gnudist.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1820lX-0006Ga-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:52:04 -0400 Original-Received: from hobitin.ucw.cz (212.11.106.92) by mail.tiscali.cz (6.0.044) id 3DA29C7F00179D22; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:46:40 +0200 Original-Received: from 0rfelyus by hobitin.ucw.cz with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 181zQ8-0000O2-00; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:25:52 +0200 Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 74 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 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:1568 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1568 Neil Jerram writes: > Daniel> * Read "guile-debugger" thread on guile-devel. Even > Daniel> developers have not known that there is guile-debugger > Daniel> package. > > In this case, though, the package is still new and possibly not ready > for the core. In my opinion it should go to CVS - development HEAD or new branch. Inclusion would accelerate both acceptance and development of guile- debugger (IMHO). > etc. Note that, if this logic is correct, distribution package > users will always end up seeing lots of small packages, even if > coming from a single Guile distribution. Yes, I understand. There are going to be a lot of small packages anyway. But I still do not see the reason why you also want to scatter and slow down Guile _development_? > It might be fun to have a flexible build that allowed to build all > these pieces from a single distribution, but (i) would we just be > reinventing the wheel known normally as packages, and (ii) is it > worth it just for the ./configure && makers? Single distribution (or one big development pot) means for me as a developer of Guile application many important things: * Everything in that distribution works together. Otherwise I have to figure out which versions work together. I have to know that guile-foo-x.y depends on guile-x.y, guile-bar-a.b depends on guile-foo-c.d and guile-e.f. Also I have to remember that guile-x.y does not have function scm_foo and I have to write many ifdefs. Also I should not forget that somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 gh_scm2newstr changed behaviour ... * Everything is released together. Suppose that there is brand-new guile-20.0 and Guile-Foo. Latest stable release of Guile-Foo is for guile-18.6.1, there is a version of Guile-Foo for guile-20.0, but only in Guile-Foo CVS. Now suppose my project depends on Guile and Guile-Foo. If I want to release new version with new features that rely on features found in Guile-20.0, I have to wait until Guile-Foo maintainer release new Guile-Foo. * Everything that is "inside" will not accidentally orphanate. Older package gets more "deprecated" warnings than newer package. It would be pity to lost some package just because nobody renamed scm_foo to scm_c_foo ... May be we should distinguish Guile (as in libguile or guile-core) and GUILE as a development platform (all guile-foo packages together). Maybe what I am calling for is not "one big Guile" (Guile == GUILE), but more organised GUILE - some policy for GUILE development. My proposal: * release often, release regularly * release together. Think GNOME - there are many big packages, but they form together one development platform. You develop for GNOME (or GNOME2), not for libfoo-x.y, libbar-a.b,.... Do you think that Guile != GUILE? Is GUILE necessary or is it just my crazy dream? What do you see as the most needed GUILE policy? Thank you for your opinions, 0. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel