building from source.

[John Ralls]

On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> writes:
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 12:32 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
>>> 
>>> See, if you install compat-guile18-devel, configure will detect guile 
>>> 1.8 on your system, but the guile binary for 1.8 is called guile1.8. But 
>>> gnucash only checks for "guile", which is the name of the guile 2.0 
>>> binary. So in this setup, you end up with CFLAGS and LDFLAGS for guile 
>>> 1.8, but with the guile executable for guile 2.0.
>> 
>> We'd prefer Guile 2.0 if it's available, right? Should we invert the
>> test so that we look
>> for Guile 2.0 first and fallback to Guile 1.8?
> 
> Probably not a bad idea, but we don't necessarily know what the
> user-space 'guile' app is going to be called.  Is "guile" 1.8 or 2.0?

I'm working on the hypothesis that the possibilities are guile and guile1.8, and the latter exists only in the case where guile 2 is installed and is called guile. By inverting the PKG_CONFIG_MODULES check to look for guile 2 first, the cflags and libs returned by the macro will match the what guile goes with.

If that hypothesis is wrong and there are instances of 'guile2' or something, then we'll need to write a test that checks the result of `guile --version` and tries other possible names like guile1.8 and guile2.

Regards,
John Ralls