Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2020, 16:40 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: > Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2020, 16:28 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > So I am reasonably confident that with some reasonably designed chunks > > of code, we'd end up with comparatively small headaches in upkeep. My > > own gut feeling is that we'd not burn (or obstruct) any major bridges > > supporting GUILE_CONFIG: if it is explicitly given, we don't really need > > to check for versions or any other viability considerations: we can just > > set the variables and be done. That's small enough that I would not > > have qualms putting it in configure.in . > > If you're unhappy with the provided patch, I'd ask you to come up with > something "reasonable" that you think is better.
Can we make progress on this issue and eventually start releasing 2.21? Here's my take on why I think above approach doesn't work: > Oh, turns out I need to strongly disagree with the last sentence: It's > probably not of concern right now, but if we ever were to require Guile > 2.x (I hope we're going to, and not only with 2.24) we should throw a > hard error if a user presents us a guile-config from 1.8. Otherwise > there will be linker errors, which are much harder to diagnose. I'm still not convinced that we need compatibility code, but I'm happy with anything that gets us to a release and is not technically wrong. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
