Re: About Guile crypto support

[Greg Troxel]

Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 16:12 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> 
>> Daniel Hartwig <address@hidden> skribis:
>> An issue with the FFI is distros where .la and .so files are only
>> available in the -dev package, because then ‘dynamic-link’ won’t work
>> unless that -dev package is installed (as recently discussed on
>> guile-user.)unanimous
>
> This could be a real issue since almost all mainstream distros packaging
> policy force *.so be put in -devel packages. Though openSUSE/debian adds
> the exception for Guile, I believe it's so hard to do that for every
> packages uses Guile. 
> Considering Guile would exists in every GNU project (in principle), the
> issue may break the packaging policy totally. 

(First, "all mainstream distros" is only talking about Linux.)

This .so=>devel does not make sense to me.   I thought the point was
that -devel split things that people who wanted to compile against the
package needed, but not things needed to run.  So if a .so is used by a
program that has been compiled, then it needs to be in the non-devel
package.  I would expect that .so generally belongs in the non-devel
package, and that the -devel package would have .a and .h.

FWIW, BSD packaging systems do not have this -devel notion

pgpMc8pguVMiw.pgp
Description: PGP signature