Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Hi Mike, Mike Gran skribis: > These are > - Texmacs (#704515) > - Autogen (#704517) > - coot (#704518) > - Demeno (#704519) > - Freehoo (#704521) > - Freetalk (#704522) > - geda-gaf (#704524) > - gnucash (#704527) > - gnu robots (#704528) - looks complete, but bug is still open > - guile-gnome-platform (#704530) > - guile-lib (#704531) > - lilypond (#704533) > - mdk (#704544) People can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many of these packages couldn’t switch transparently to Guile 2.0, and the required porting effort hasn’t been started or completed yet. For instance, I think there’s on-going work to port LilyPond and Autogen to Guile 2.0; I haven’t heard of similar efforts for TeXmacs. The latest version of guile-lib definitely works well with Guile 2.0; guile-gnome-platform in git works well too, I think, but the latest stable release doesn’t. Would you like to help with all this? :-) Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Mike Gran writes: > Hi- > > With the Fedora 18 beta starting, I thought I'd check on the > state of Guile. To date, Fedora hasn't moved past Guile 1.8.8. > > The meta-bug tracking Guile 2.0.x integration is #678238 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678238 > > But, it is being blocked by several packages failing to build > with Guile 2.0. > > These are > - geda-gaf (#704524) I'll be releasing a new version of geda-gaf (1.8.0) which supports 2.0.x well within the next few hours, hopefully. Peter -- Peter Brett Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre pgpxC8TOus6bt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
> From: Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org >> These are >> - Texmacs (#704515) >> - Autogen (#704517) >> - coot (#704518) >> - Demeno (#704519) >> - Freehoo (#704521) >> - Freetalk (#704522) >> - geda-gaf (#704524) >> - gnucash (#704527) >> - gnu robots (#704528) - looks complete, but bug is still open >> - guile-gnome-platform (#704530) >> - guile-lib (#704531) >> - lilypond (#704533) >> - mdk (#704544) > Would you like to help with all this? :-) I intend to, but, where to begin? I'll try contacting some of the projects on their fora to see if I can lend a hand. But first I thought I see if this thread here would yield magical results. Thanks, Mike
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Hello, On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Mike Gran wrote: > > I intend to, but, where to begin? I'll try contacting some > of the projects on their fora to see if I can lend a hand. > Thanks a lot! That would be a great thing for Guile. > But first I thought I see if this thread here would yield > magical results. > I don't have any magic, but I am curious - I would imagine that a lot of the problems in upgrading these programs will be the same, because some Guile API will have changed. It would be interesting to know which changes have been big issues. I looked at the NEWS file, and there have been some changes that seem like obvious candidates, but I don't really know without looking. Sadly, I don't think I'll have time to work on this for a while, but I appreciate your willingness to do it. Noah
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
On Sun, Nov 18 2012, Mike Gran wrote: [...] > - mdk (#704544) I have patches for a new version of mdk that compiles with Guile 2.0... the only missing bit is time :) i'm hoping to get to release a new version before the end of the year... jao
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Hi Peter- > From: Peter TB Brett > I'll be releasing a new version of geda-gaf (1.8.0) which supports 2.0.x > well > within the next few hours, hopefully. That's great news. Thank you. -Mike Gran
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Hi Jao- > From: Jose A. Ortega Ruiz > I have patches for a new version of mdk that compiles with Guile > 2.0... the only missing bit is time :) i'm hoping to get to release a > new version before the end of the year... Great. Let me know if you need anything. -Mike Gran
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
On 18 November 2012 23:42, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > People can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many of these packages > couldn’t switch transparently to Guile 2.0, and the required porting > effort hasn’t been started or completed yet. Mike You may want to suggest having separate guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 packages to keep things moving. Or, does Fedora not encourage packaging schemes like that?
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
Hi Daniel- > From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com > You may want to suggest having separate guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 > packages to keep things moving. Or, does Fedora not encourage > packaging schemes like that? First, I don't want to misrepresent my role. I'm only a Fedora user and busybody. But, that type of packaging is used all over GTK in Fedora: gtk2, gtk3, etc; but, it is not encouraged, as far as I understand it. -Mike
Re: Getting Guile 2.0.x onto Fedora
On 19 November 2012 10:14, Mike Gran wrote: >> You may want to suggest having separate guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 >> packages to keep things moving. Or, does Fedora not encourage >> packaging schemes like that? > > First, I don't want to misrepresent my role. I'm only a Fedora > user and busybody. > > But, that type of packaging is used all over GTK in Fedora: > gtk2, gtk3, etc; but, it is not encouraged, as far as I > understand it. Yes, best to avoid it unless required (i.e. libraries with API changes). Guile definitely falls with the same category as gtk, as far as changing API is concerned. No harm if you put this suggestion forward. Debian still has an old guile-1.6 package around to support some older software.
