From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58745)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1epiW5-0002WI-Ka
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:42:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1epiW2-0008Ns-ED
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:42:05 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51244)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1epiW2-0008NE-Ap
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:42:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1epiW1-0008Us-V8
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:42:01 -0500
Subject: [bug#30469] [PATCH 0/1] Require Guile >= 2.0.14
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.30469.B30469.151951208932618@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <20180215152627.4695-1-ludo@gnu.org>
	<20180224083032.4f5f1e36@centurylink.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 23:41:24 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20180224083032.4f5f1e36@centurylink.net> (Eric Bavier's message
	of "Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:30:32 -0600")
Message-ID: <87k1v280yz.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Eric Bavier <ericbavier@centurylink.net>
Cc: 30469@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello,

Eric Bavier <ericbavier@centurylink.net> skribis:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:26:27 +0100
> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello Guix,
>>=20
>> This patch is to require Guile >=3D 2.0.14, released one year ago, inste=
ad
>> of 2.0.9, released in 2013.
>>=20
>> For the record, here=E2=80=99s the distro status:
>>=20
>>   =E2=80=A2 Debian unstable has 2.2:
>>     <https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=3Ddefault&section=3Dall&ar=
ch=3Dany&searchon=3Dnames&keywords=3Dguile-2.2>.
>>=20
>>   =E2=80=A2 Older Debian versions have 2.0.13 (not .14):
>>     <https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=3Dguile-2.0>.
>
> How much of this patch would change if it were to instead support
> 2.0.13?  Is cutting off users of Debian stable a good idea?

I=E2=80=99ll double-check but I think the patch remains valid if we require
2.0.13.

If it works I=E2=80=99ll commit that next week.

>> I=E2=80=99d also like it to be the last release that support Guile 2.0.
>
> Same question.

2.2 is becoming quite widespread in distros.

Overall it=E2=80=99s a cost/benefit tradeoff, and we have to take into acco=
unt
that most users get Guix using the binary tarball or GuixSD.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo=E2=80=99.