From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Greg Troxel Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Release now? Date: 27 Feb 2003 14:36:54 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87of50tdcz.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <873cmbpyij.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <873cm9oe9k.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87r89tlf07.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87isv5leom.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 1046374726 27757 80.91.224.249 (27 Feb 2003 19:38:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:38:46 +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 18oTrT-0007D4-00 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:38:31 +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 18oTrJ-0004E8-0B for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:38:21 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oTqp-0003ds-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oTqR-0002sI-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:30 -0500 Original-Received: from fnord.ir.bbn.com ([192.1.100.210]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18oTpu-00028G-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:36:54 -0500 Original-Received: by fnord.ir.bbn.com (Postfix, from userid 10853) id 7E037864; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:36:54 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <87isv5leom.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Original-Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 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:2003 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2003 Putting the guile version in the lib name would fix that too, but I think there's still a reasonably strong sentiment against libguile-12-gwrap-glib-2-gl-3-whatever-4. But is the sentiment well founded? We've gone down the path of lib symlinks, and it seems that it really is pretty hairy. I hold up glib 1.2/2 as an example of a low-pain solution to what would otherwise have been a very painful and chaotic transition. Right now we are perhaps 0.2 to 0.3 of the way through it, and tons of people have both versions - and both versions of dependent stuff like ORBit - installed at the same time. Over time more libraries will move to the glib2 world, and programs as all the libraries are available, and eventually people won't need glib 1.2. Granted, this is way more complicated than guile, but it's an excellent example of a long chain of library dependencies when the base library has a major change. Granted, you can't do this often, and guile should try to do it no more often than once every 5 years, but the coping mechanism seems to work. And I would suggest not keying on major numbers, but on compile time changes, and thus the release numbers. This only need be for when 'recompile everything' isn't a good answer. libguile14 and libguile16 will be less confsing, IMHO. Or does debian insist on upgrading a package without upgrading things that depend on it? If so, I think one has to have a new package name that can coexist on every incompatible change. (NetBSD's make update does a pkg_delete -r and then rebuilds all the depending packages.) Greg Troxel _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel