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

Re: Upcoming guile 1.4 -> 1.6 transition.

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:

> I'm not talking afout changing the SONAME, which would break binary
> compatibility with upstream and other distributions, and we don't want
> that. I'm just talking about changing the package names, without
> changing anything else.

Ahh, I've seen the C++ plan now, and that might be our best choice.
But rather than the g16 you recommended, how about scm16?  I feel like
ghe g prefix would be more likely to make people think of the libc6
"g", or perhaps gtk or glib.  We'd have libguile-foo-scm16 until (as
the C++ plan indicates) the upstream versions change their soname
again, and then you drop the -scmX.  As the C++ plan also states, the
new libfoo-scm16 library packages would need to conflict with with the
old versions.

Thoughts anyone?

> The problem is that this way, we break partial upgrades.

Good point.

For those joining this on debian-devel, we're working in a staging
area http://people.debian.org/~rlb/guile-1.6-staging/, and you can use
this sources.list line if you want to try things out as we move along:

  deb http://people.debian.org/~rlb/guile-1.6-staging/ ./

Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

Reply to: