Hi Mark!

> Respectfully, it seems to me that you've been too quick to dismiss my
> concerns.  As I pointed out in my previous email:
> 
>    (1) [These versioned references] will likely lead to conflicts within
>    profiles.  For example, a profile that includes both 'gtkmm' and
>    'cairomm' may fail to build, because it would require including both
>    'cairomm' and 'cairomm-1.13',

I didn't dismiss your concerns. Since you mentioned "If it turns out 
that these versioned references are truly unavoidable [...]", at the 
time of my reply, I was convinced that its unavoidable.


> This could be a real annoyance.  Guix users should be able to run "guix
> install gtkmm atkmm cairomm pangomm" and have that work.  With these
> proposed patches applied, I suspect that it might not work.
> 
> Traditional GNU/Linux distributions that package GNOME 40 will certainly
> choose versions of 'gtkmm', 'atkmm', 'cairomm', and 'pangomm' that are
> compatible with each other.  We should too, I think.
> 
>  From my own experience performing a GNOME upgrade for Guix a few years
> ago, I remember that when the GNOME developers produce a new GNOME
> release, they provide somewhere a list of the versions of each component
> that are part of that release.  Presumably they choose those versions to
> be compatible with each other.
> 
> This makes me wonder if some of the GNOME components on the 'wip-gnome'
> branch are newer than they should be (perhaps a development version) or
> older than they should be.
> 
> What do you think?

I tried dirty hack of patching meson.build of gtkmm, to refer to latest 
versions of cairomm, atkmm, pangomm. Though, 'configure phase passes, 
'build phase fails with *numerous* errors.

If I de-propagate those inputs, packages that depends on gtkmm via 
pkg-config, gonna barf "gtkmm not found".

Do you have any ideas?

Regards,
RG.