Re: [PATCH] Thread Plug-in Support #2

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes, this looks quite simple, and I would add, deceptively so.  I
> can't say that I have extensive experience with Unix shared
> libraries, but I would prefer a scheme where we are using shared
> libraries only in `standard' ways.  That is, mainly put them in
> standard locations and use the normal ways to link them.

OK, this seems like a reasonably good default position.  Though it
still leaves open the questions of how do we deal with the versioning
from the dynamic-link level (which as you point out perhaps depends on
libtdl's behavior), and whether or not we want to have any versioning
for guile modules (i.e. following something like the libtool model):

  (use-modules (foo bar :version 1))

and in foo/bar.scm

  (define-module (foo bar :current 2 :revision 4 :age 1))

or whatever.  I'm not sure we do, but if we don't, some upgrades are
going to be ugly.  (I'm considering this partially from the "worried
Debian maintainer's perspective" :>)

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930