Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jon Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, I'd just like to see it happen. I'd like to see more people
>> using guile, as I think it would help the project, and I suspect
>> that not having 1.8 in major distributions is likely to be a serious
>> obstacle.
>
> At this point Guile 1.8 should be in Debian, though for now I've set
> it to build --without-threads (see the thread regarding the popen
> problem).
That's certainly good news.
In addition, though, I've been thinking that it doesn't really make
sense for us to be so dependent on Debian's specific release times (or
those of other major distributions). I would like to look at setting
up an independent repository for Guile and Guile-related packages, so
that people who want to stay more up to date can do so.
> With respect to SLIB, as mentioned, I was talking to Aubrey Jaffer,
> and at the time it sounded like we might want to follow a different
> approach in 1.8, one where each SLIB feature would have its own Guile
> module with its own exports. I didn't get far enough to verify, but
> it sounded like SLIB might support enough introspection to allow us to
> automate the modularization.
Presumably it would still work for a program to use SLIB's require
mechanism instead?
> So at this point, if someone else wants to investigate, that would be
> great. Also, there's no reason that we have to pursue the more
> ambitious changes. For now, if no one has time to investigate the
> modular approach, we could attempt to do something more like what we
> did in 1.6.
Can you remind us what the issue is? (A pointer to an existing email
would do.)
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
