Re: Any opposition to changing share/guile/X.Y.Z to share/guile/X.Y?

[Rob Browning]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> Hmm... shouldn't the libraries from different minor versions of Guile
> have different version numbers (bumbed between versions) and therefore
> be possible to install in parallel?

I should have been more specific -- I meant the revision number here,
what we call the MICRO version.  i.e. 1.6.1 vs 1.6.2.  Across those
two, I wouldn't necessarily (if perhaps at all -- see other msg)
expect the library version numbers to change.

For example, imagine the release was just a documentation update.

> Regarding the binary: How about using similar conventions as for
> emacs: guile symlinked to guile1.6.1

Do we want to support multiple installed MICRO revisions?  i.e. do we
want it to be possible to install guile 1.6.1 and guile 1.6.2 side by
side?  I was presuming we didn't specifically care about that, but if
we do, we probably can, but the changes will be more substantial since
we'll also have to start versioning the name of libguile,
i.e. libguile-12.so so that the .so development and .la dynamic
linking files won't clobber each other.

For Debian at least I was packaging things for now so that you can
only have one guile-X.Y-dev package installed at a time.  To do
anything different would require more upstream changes (including the
above), and until/unless that happens, people should be able to get by
by just switching out the -dev packages.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu