From: Tom Willemsen <tom@ryuslash.org>
To: Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>
Cc: guile-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Multiple version
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:48:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3limd9rxi.fsf@ryuslash.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <rmibon964ew.fsf@fnord.ir.bbn.com>
Hey Greg,
On Tue 03 Apr 2012 02:32:39 AM CEST, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> I was wondering if it's possible to have guile 1.8 and guile 2.0
> installed on the same system? I remember reading in the documentation
> that it is, but I haven't been able to pull it off yet, except by using
> different --prefix values for each.
>
> pkgsrc (a packaging system originally for NetBSD, but also supports
> other BSDs, Linux, *Solaris, and others) doesn't have guile 2 yet (my
> fault :-) but has 1.6 and 1.8. 1.8 is installed normally
> (--prefix=/usr/pkg, named guile) and guile1.6 is installed
> --prefix=/usr/pkg/guile/1.6. So that's a data point about others'
> approach to your problem.
Yeah I got this far with guile 2.0 as well.
> I don't know enough about the autotools to know what to do with
> guile.m4. Does automake/autoconf expect the file name to match
> something, or does it only look at the definitions inside, in which case
> it could simply be moved.
>
> You only need that to run autoconf on programs that depend on guile, and
> either should be ok. So you could patch it out of the 2.0 build.
> But having a separate prefix seems easiest.
I understand, I know just enough about autoconf to know that }:)
But if I write something that depends on guile, would I have to change
anything in my scripts to use guile 2.0 if I've installed the file as,
for example, guile2.m4?
> What's wrong (or actually problematic) about using /usr/guile2 as the
> prefix for guile 2.0, and putting it in your path and/or passing that
> for building other things?
There's nothing really wrong, I just think it's a little
unnecessary. Since guile seems to be able to live next to other versions
of itself for about 90%. All the library files and script files are
already in a special directory, only some of the other files
(info,m4,guile-tools) seem to conflict.
Anyway, it's not really a problem, it's pretty much just lazyness and
curiosity. I would like to use software for both versions with minimal
patching and I would like to be able to write software for guile 2
without using all kinds of configuration specific to my case.
I should probably just try it with a renamed guile.m4, I was actually
hoping for some recommendations or warnings or stories about how other
people handle it, I don't want to do something that goes completely
against all recommendations.
Thanks for your answer!
Cheers,
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-03 7:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-03 0:16 Multiple version Tom Willemsen
2012-04-03 0:32 ` Greg Troxel
2012-04-03 7:48 ` Tom Willemsen [this message]
2012-04-03 16:47 ` Greg Troxel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3limd9rxi.fsf@ryuslash.org \
--to=tom@ryuslash.org \
--cc=gdt@ir.bbn.com \
--cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).