Nikita Ronja Gillmann <nikita%klang.is@localhost> writes: > On the topic guile applications: When they install a binary, > should we symlink from the guile bin folder to the pkg bin folder? > I assume people would expect binaries to be found this way instead > of extending their PATH to the guile bin folder. wiz says, if I heard right, that you should be using pkg_alternatives. The other thing we could do, and maybe should, but post branch I'd say, is to make guile 3.0 not be namespaced. At this point I see it that guile 3.0 is the current stable release, and anyhing that uses guile and doesn't work with 3.0 is having maintenance problems and is overdue for a formal release that 1) works with 3.0 and 2) is recommended as an upgrade for all users. The other view is that this is like python, where we have pythonN.M for many values, and no python. However, most python using things (upstreams) are sort of used to this, because python has been an epic upgrade disaster for more years than I can remember. It's *still* not ok to just nuke 2.7 entirely, and every change of default needs care. So all in all, given that the *rest of the world* does not have culture or practice of namespacing guile, I lean to makeing guile 3.0 installed as upstream would install it, and the rest in subprefixes. So if someone else wants to make guile 3.0 not be namespaced (like 2.0 used to be in /usr/pkg/bin/guile), revbump all the guile 3.0-depending packages, and fix any problems, I think that's the preferable outcome.
Description: PGP signature