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