[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Can't you, for instance, change the Libtool interface number for
> `libguile'? That's ugly, and would require recompilation of all
> packages depending on it, but at least it would allow you to produce
> thread-enabled packages for the remainder of 1.
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Perhaps Guile should use a different name for the threaded libs if
> they're not compatible.
I suppose that'd help against mysterious crashes, but leaves the same
problem as in every incompatibility, ie. that add-ons do or don't
switch, making various c
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess scm_cell has been inlined that way for a while, but it'd be
> worth thinking about not inlining it, or only inlining for internal
> uses, in the interests of binary compatibility among as many build
> options as possible.
One would have to eva
Hi,
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is potentially bad (for Debian at least). I'll have to
> investigate, but it may mean that I will have to revert Debian's build
> for now so that it doesn't enable threads.
Can't you, for instance, change the Libtool interface number for
`libg
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gave Rob's new debian packaged 1.8.2 a go and found a bit of a problem
> with scm_cell. The new packages have threads enabled, where the old
> ones had it disabled, and alas that setting infects the inlined
> scm_cell(). If you built your app against th
I gave Rob's new debian packaged 1.8.2 a go and found a bit of a problem
with scm_cell. The new packages have threads enabled, where the old
ones had it disabled, and alas that setting infects the inlined
scm_cell(). If you built your app against the old and run it against
the new then it bombs o
