HEADS-UP: Transition to guile-2.0.x and a new compat-guile1.8 package

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Oct 24 21:25:03 UTC 2012

On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 17:13 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Williamson (awilliam at redhat.com) said: 
> > Well, I don't mind doing that, but I'd like to be sure there's a broad
> > consensus that this is the way to go first. I don't think 'duelling
> > drafts' is the best way to decide on what direction to go; I'd rather
> > make sure we agree on the direction first, and use the drafting process
> > simply to refine how we express that direction.
> It causes problems for people who build things outside of chroots with
> straight rpmbuild, though, if they need to ever build different things
> with different buildreqs (even as test builds).
> Admittedly, we like to encourage people to use mock, but people will still
> hit this.

I know. I said 'important' use cases, I believe. =)

I just don't think that, overall, it's better to hack up a library's
build scripts and pkgconfig file and header locations and all the rest
of it than it is to tell people 'just flip which one you have installed
with yum when you really need to'. 'yum remove libfoo-devel', 'yum
install libfoo-compat-devel' is not a complex operation. If you really
have to do it all the time you could easily alias it to something even
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list