[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New guile packages

In article <19981209093054.A18795@gate.cks.com>, David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 09:23:23AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 1998 at 23:59:41 -0800, David N. Welton wrote:
>> > Ok, these ought to fix the problem with linking against qthreads.  I also
>> > dispensed with 'build-guile' and went with guile-config.
>> Could you tell us the status of the __register_frame_info in libguile3 too?
>> I just did a quick check, and there doesn't seem to be a fixed version in
>> frozen or Incoming.

> libguile3 is deprecated and should be removed from the archive.  It is
> a bug to depend on it.

> libguile4 is really the same package, but reflects the soname.

Why do we *have* to keep breaking backwards compatability like this?

Can't someone install a fixed libguile3?  That would seem easier than
moving all applications to libguile3 (what about bugs perhaps
introduced by the move?).  Plus, suppose the user has some stuff in
/usr/local/bin which uses libguile3.

Why do we remove old shlib packages all the time?

I almost think there should be an item in Policy that all *released*
shlib packages must be retained in the archive for at least 18 months
after they are *obsoleted*.  Well... maybe not.... ;) But you get the

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: