On 10/23/2012 03:44 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: >> Parallel installable guile interpreters: >> http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-1.8/filelist >> http://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/guile-2.0/filelist > > So both new and old guile scripts need to be patched to call > the right binary? Or is there a symlink created? Looks like they are using alternatives to create the /usr/bin/guile symlink. I don't know enough of guile to take a position if it's something we should do in Fedora as well. > Jan was proposing this approach too, but I thought if some packages > need to be patched to use the 1.8 guile paths, why not make one step > further and patch also the paths used in building. At least, when the > maintainers of the old packages prepare the patches, they can make > sure if the packages still work correctly. I wouldn't be so sure everyone is up to this. A lot of package maintainers just don't know enough of autotools to change even simple things like this. > Our packaging guidelines seem to allow (but discourage) conflicts with > compat devel packages, if you think this will be a lot of unnecessary > work, I'm ok with the conflict. Let's take a step back for a moment. The reason why I am arguing for less obtrusive changes is to find a way to land this in F18 as well. If all the packages that use guile need patching, then it's very unlikely to land in F18; like Jan said it's too late for this. But if we can figure out a way to get parallel installable guile 1.8 and 2.0 so that 1.8 packages don't need patching, then I think it can make it to F18 as well. > FWIW, the OpenSuse packages don't seem to have the conflict and their > libguile1-devel package has the aclocal file renamed to guile1.m4. Do you know how they are handling the /usr/bin/guile symlink issue? -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
