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

[Geert Janssens]

On Tuesday 12 November 2013 06:51:28 John Ralls wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> 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
> 
> From the latter: "My guile knowledge is too limited to fully grasp
> this."
> 
> And your is way beyond mine. Perhaps you could ask Andy Wingo for
> help.
> 
> Regards,
> John Ralls

That's a good idea. How would you contact him ? Cc'ing him into the bug report and asking 
nicely ? Or is that considered rude ?

Perhaps he is known to be on some relevant mailinglist (or better even an irc channel) ?

Geert