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

[Rob Browning]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> I have no other argument.  Also, it is "OK" with me to do as you want,
> because I haven't the time to think about it.
>
> But if you ask my current uninformed opinion, and given the current
> poor status of UNIX tool for handling this kind of dependencies, I'd
> say I prefer separating micro versions and recompiling things between
> micro version releases. :)

Well it certainly would fix the problem in some sense, but unless
we're going to make guile "Depends: gcc", and switch to a "compile on
install" packaging arrangement (don't think I haven't considered that
-- actually having gcc around all the time might open up some
"interesting" compilation options), I suspect we might have a revolt
from the users tracking Debian unstable if all guile packages broke
with every minor release :>

Though I guess if we put the full version in the lib names and in
*everything* else (like libguile-1.6.1.so,
libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.6.0.so etc.) then we could just eat a lot of
disk space rather than break things with new releases, but I also
suspect that the first time one of the other Debian maintainers
noticed that they had all of the

  guile-1.6.1
  guile-1.6.2
  guile-1.6.3
  guile-1.8.1
  guile-1.8.2

packages installed at the same time (due to leftovers), I might have
to think fast if I wanted to avoid a good trouncing :>

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