From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, stable-2.0, updated. v2.0.0-124-g5f0d295 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:15:32 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87d3lff5ev.fsf@inria.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301076930 31501 80.91.229.12 (25 Mar 2011 18:15:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:15:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 25 19:15:26 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BXg-0000Yn-7Z for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:15:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44850 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3BXf-0007O4-Mr for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:15:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44803 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3BXb-0007Nd-VO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:15:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BXa-0008G6-Du for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:15:19 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:45027 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BXa-0008Fh-BY; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:15:18 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DB34AB9; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:16:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=tC+2toA07Sno j1yXSzJSeGLFfus=; b=HSPi1k0OORHPnEtYHf/Nnl+CNlZq+vJJMDgl/E+FMOAW dGbUEyOXClgSBevprJ3idIVEjsl81vgKIw8e2Yo5kliLEV+1rByDm5kz0dc1lY7M 2mD00/cDg8aWDeUcmAxOpKQSZ2gvKpgKnf0UneRmtQFi8qILfRAEHpXlcJmpZvc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ifQe+m l4r2Loww/n7CxuzWJkVhB+n96yTNcfFKzNGMGPcJJZXfkRwR31zSIybPNdkSoMKp J2EbIztZyAUf17i+QFcbQXgNiWhpM1rx+qGtlZ+o8hvxEc3L7ZbiEL9bm/gO3m6+ Vk48dI41whrNaU7rpgcqZdb1d+7tY2pFr7nhE= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4AA4AB8; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD6EF4AB5; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:16:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87d3lff5ev.fsf@inria.fr> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22?= =?utf-8?Q?'s?= message of "Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:58:48 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 11E1429E-570C-11E0-99BE-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11987 Archived-At: Hi! On Fri 25 Mar 2011 18:58, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > "Andy Wingo" writes: > >> bdw-gc 6.8 compatibility (hopefully) > > Aarrrgh. The intent has always been to support 7.x only (bdw-gc.h has > compatibility stuff for historical reasons), which is already enough > work. ;-) The README and various responses we posted in the past are > consistent. > > WDYT? I think we've been sending mixed messages. Some people want to build on Debian stable, which has seemed to work fine. In this case I wasn't sure when these interfaces were added: 7.0, 7.1, or what, and I was away from the tubes when I was hacking (though I did have a 6.8 tarball). So I added this code. In short, it doesn't much matter to me :) We can program to the 7.x interfaces, and if people want to use old buggy software, then we tell them to upgrade. But if it keeps working, no problem, right? Dunno... A --=20 http://wingolog.org/