Guile 1.8 vs 2.0 (was: Re: building from source.)

[mcmurchy1917-gnucash at yahoo.co.uk]

I've come into this chat a bit late. I have gnucash running on Slackware.

In the last few weeks slackware has swapped over to using guile 2.0.9 
previously it was on 1.8.8.

To enable gnucash to work I installed guile 1.8.8 to sit in my distro as a 
standalone package and to sit alongside guile 2.0.9.

See http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/gnucash-on-
slackware-14-1-a-4175483337/ for more information.


My question here is this thread about getting the 2.4 gnucash series working 
with guile 2.0?

While I'm here what's the outlook for the gnucash 2.6 series?


Alex





On Tuesday 12 Nov 2013 09:55:07 Geert Janssens wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2013 17:19:08 John Ralls wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I already have the patch to prefer guile 2 over guile 1.8 in my local
> repository for quite some time. I have hesitated to push it to svn because
> there are still some issues with guile 2:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709589
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707311
> 
> My first attempts at fixing these didn't work out. I haven't had much time
> to spend on it yet though.
> 
> On the other hand guile 1.8 works across the board. For that reason I never
> pushed the changes to prefer guile 2.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> So far I have only seen guile and guile1.8 as John presumes (that's on
> Fedora).
> 
> But regardless of which guile version we prefer, the module check and the
> program check should get aligned. If the module check finds guile 1.8, the
> program check should look for the executable that belongs to guile 1.8. If
> the module check returns guile 2, the program check equally should look for
> the guile 2 executable. Guile 2 comes with a macro for that. Guile 1.8
> unfortunately doesn't.
> 
> The next issue would be that the gnucash sources still have the executable
> to use hard-coded. So if the program check tells us the executable to use
> is guile1.8, some parts of the code will continue to use guile because
> that's hard-coded.
> 
> Not a difficult issue to fix. I just mention it so we remember to do so.
> 
> I'll work on these in the coming days.
> 
> Geert
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.