Should we distribute libltdl?

Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

Hi,

we currently distribute a copy of libltdl as part of guile-core and
install it when libltdl is not already found in the system.

I think this is wrong since libltdl belongs to libtool and should be
installed by libtool and not by any number of programs that use it.

We do not distribute libgmp although we rely on it and we shouldn't
distribute libltdl although we rely on it.

I had the concrete problem that I couldn't do a "make distcheck"
without prior "make install" on a system where in fact libltdl was not
available.  But even if this is due to some bugs in the way that we
use libltdl, I think we should just treat libltdl as any other
external library.

It makes installing Guile slightly harder, but the behavior of Guile
is in fact simpler.

Opinions?

(I have committed the removal of libltdl already.)

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Bruce Korb]

Hi Marius,

I think this is more a question for libtool folks.
My opinion:  the more impediments to installation that there are
results in more folks deciding that it isn't worth the bother.
I really hate downloading a package only to find that there's
a bunch of other stuff to find, download and install first.

Regards, Bruce

On Monday 07 March 2005 05:09 pm, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we currently distribute a copy of libltdl as part of guile-core and
> install it when libltdl is not already found in the system.
> 
> I think this is wrong since libltdl belongs to libtool and should be
> installed by libtool and not by any number of programs that use it.
> 
> We do not distribute libgmp although we rely on it and we shouldn't
> distribute libltdl although we rely on it.
> 
> I had the concrete problem that I couldn't do a "make distcheck"
> without prior "make install" on a system where in fact libltdl was not
> available.  But even if this is due to some bugs in the way that we
> use libltdl, I think we should just treat libltdl as any other
> external library.
> 
> It makes installing Guile slightly harder, but the behavior of Guile
> is in fact simpler.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> (I have committed the removal of libltdl already.)
> 


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Greg Troxel]

A big question is the ease of installation for those using OS package
systems vs those doing things by hand.  My view is that the really big
issue is making things
a) easy to package
and
b) easy to use once packaged

Since that's what is in the critical path to having things like
gnumeric have guile support out of the box.

FWIW NetBSD pkgsrc installs libltdl via the devel/libltld package.

Do people other than guile hackers build guile by hand, and if so do
they use package systems to get things like readline and gmp?


Here's the guile control file for pkgsrc.  But it seems to link in the
special guile ltldl:

/usr/pkg/bin/guile:
	-lcrypt.0 => /usr/lib/libcrypt.so.0
	-lm.0 => /usr/lib/libm387.so.0
	-lm.0 => /usr/lib/libm.so.0
	-lpthread.0 => /usr/lib/libpthread.so.0
	-lguile-ltdl.1 => /usr/pkg/lib/libguile-ltdl.so.1
	-lguile.12 => /usr/pkg/lib/libguile.so.12
	-lc.12 => /usr/lib/libc.so.12


# $NetBSD: Makefile,v 1.58 2004/11/18 12:30:49 wiz Exp $

DISTNAME=		guile-1.6.5
CATEGORIES=		lang
MASTER_SITES=		${MASTER_SITE_GNU:=guile/}

MAINTAINER=		tech-pkg@NetBSD.org
HOMEPAGE=		http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html
COMMENT=		GNU's Ubiquitous Intelligent Language for Extension

CONFLICTS=		guile14<1.4.1nb1 guile-oops-[0-9]*

USE_BUILDLINK3=		YES
GNU_CONFIGURE=		YES
USE_GNU_TOOLS+=		make
USE_LIBTOOL=		YES
USE_GNU_READLINE=	YES

USE_MAKEINFO=		YES
INFO_FILES=		guile.info guile-tut.info goops.info r5rs.info

TEST_DIRS=		${WRKSRC}
TEST_TARGET=		check

.include "../../mk/bsd.prefs.mk"

.if ${OPSYS} == "Darwin"
CPPFLAGS+=		-Dmacosx

post-patch:
	@${MV} ${WRKSRC}/guile-config/guile-config.in.orig \
	    ${WRKSRC}/guile-config/guile-config.in
.endif

.include "../../devel/libltdl/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../devel/ncurses/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../devel/readline/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../mk/pthread.buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../mk/bsd.pkg.mk"

-- 
        Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@veritas.com> writes:

> My opinion:  the more impediments to installation that there are
> results in more folks deciding that it isn't worth the bother.
> I really hate downloading a package only to find that there's
> a bunch of other stuff to find, download and install first.

Yes, but I think Guile is very reasonable with its "bunch of other
stuff".  It only really requires libgmp and libltdl.  The versions of
these that are in the mainstream distributions should suffice.

Also, the question right is not whether should rely on libltdl, it is
whether we should distribute libltdl and automatically install it when
needed.  That is, should Guile say "You don't seem to have libltdl, I
will quietly install it for you." or should it say loudly "You don't
seem to have libltdl, please install it, for example from ..."?

On Debian, for example, it would be much cleaner to "apt-get install
libltdl3-dev" instead of letting Guile install libltdl into
/usr/local/lib, say.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> writes:

> A big question is the ease of installation for those using OS package
> systems vs those doing things by hand.  My view is that the really big
> issue is making things
> a) easy to package
> and
> b) easy to use once packaged

Those two things would benefit when Guile explicitely declares as a
external dependency.  The Right Thing for a Guile OS package such as a
.deb or .rpm is not to contain libltdl but to depend on the package
that contains libltdl.

> Here's the guile control file for pkgsrc.  But it seems to link in the
> special guile ltldl:

Yes, in the 1.6 series we use our own version of libltdl.  This is no
longer the case.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Bruce Korb]

Hi Marius,

Marius Vollmer wrote:

> Yes, but I think Guile is very reasonable with its "bunch of other
> stuff".  It only really requires libgmp and libltdl.  The versions of
> these that are in the mainstream distributions should suffice.

The mainstream distributions "of Linux" :).  My world is about 1/4 Linux
and doesn't Guile's "u" stand for "ubiquitous"?  ;-)

> Also, the question right is not whether should rely on libltdl, it is
> whether we should distribute libltdl and automatically install it when
> needed.  That is, should Guile say "You don't seem to have libltdl, I
> will quietly install it for you." or should it say loudly "You don't
> seem to have libltdl, please install it, for example from ..."?

The "for example from" clause would make the failure much more palatable
than the straight up obtuse failures from other packages.  I would still
_prefer_ to see either an "I've installed it for you" message, or even
a "I cannot install Guile unless you let me install libltdl with an
``--enable-libltdl-install'' configure option".  Telling me to go off and
fetch a package at some well-known location is "okay."

Since you are not proposing to fail the configure and leave no clues,
in the end I am okay with whatever you want to do :).

Thank you.  Cheers - Bruce


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@veritas.com> writes:

> Since you are not proposing to fail the configure and leave no clues,

Yes, good documentation is of course needed.  Right now, Guile fails with

    configure: error: libltdl not found.  See README.

And the README says:

    Required External Packages ========================================

    Guile requires the following external packages:

      - GNU MP, at least version 4.1

        GNU MP is used for bignum arithmetic.  It is available from
        http://swox.com/gmp

      - libltdl from libtool, at least from libtool version 1.5.6

        libltdl is used for loading extensions at run-time.  It is
        available from http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/

> in the end I am okay with whatever you want to do :).

Ok! :)


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[rm]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 09:13:48AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Marius,
> 
> Marius Vollmer wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but I think Guile is very reasonable with its "bunch of other
> > stuff".  It only really requires libgmp and libltdl.  The versions of
> > these that are in the mainstream distributions should suffice.
> 
> The mainstream distributions "of Linux" :).  My world is about 1/4 Linux
> and doesn't Guile's "u" stand for "ubiquitous"?  ;-)

Ynd right you are :-) There's GNU outside of Linux ....

> > Also, the question right is not whether should rely on libltdl, it is
> > whether we should distribute libltdl and automatically install it when
> > needed.  That is, should Guile say "You don't seem to have libltdl, I
> > will quietly install it for you." or should it say loudly "You don't
> > seem to have libltdl, please install it, for example from ..."?
> 
> The "for example from" clause would make the failure much more palatable
> than the straight up obtuse failures from other packages.  I would still
> _prefer_ to see either an "I've installed it for you" message, or even
> a "I cannot install Guile unless you let me install libltdl with an
> ``--enable-libltdl-install'' configure option".  Telling me to go off and
> fetch a package at some well-known location is "okay."
> 
> Since you are not proposing to fail the configure and leave no clues,
> in the end I am okay with whatever you want to do :).

Hmm, from two other often-used libraries: both expat and neon seem to be 
libraries used by many OSS projects. Many seem to distrubute their own version
of these libraries but give the user a chance to use the system installed versions
(by means of a configuration option '--with-local-expat' or the like). Same goes
for the Boehm garbage collector ...
Can't guile distribute libltdl but only use it iff there's no local version found
(or if the user states her intention by configure magic)?

 cheers Ralf Mattes
> Thank you.  Cheers - Bruce
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Guile-devel mailing list
> Guile-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <marius.vollmer@uni-dortmund.de> writes:

> Those two things would benefit when Guile explicitely declares as a
> external dependency.  The Right Thing for a Guile OS package such as a
> .deb or .rpm is not to contain libltdl but to depend on the package
> that contains libltdl.

For the record, now that we don't need customizations, I don't have
any problem with dropping our copy of libltdl.  Alhough I agree that
it would be good to have a clear configure error message when libltdl
is not detected.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Neil Jerram]

Rob Browning wrote:
> Marius Vollmer <marius.vollmer@uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> 
> 
>>Those two things would benefit when Guile explicitely declares as a
>>external dependency.  The Right Thing for a Guile OS package such as a
>>.deb or .rpm is not to contain libltdl but to depend on the package
>>that contains libltdl.
> 
> 
> For the record, now that we don't need customizations, I don't have
> any problem with dropping our copy of libltdl.  Alhough I agree that
> it would be good to have a clear configure error message when libltdl
> is not detected.
> 

That's my view too.  Perhaps I'm spoilt by being a Debian user, but if 
other OS's don't have a decent package system, they really ought to sort 
that out.

	Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Greg Troxel]

  > Yes, but I think Guile is very reasonable with its "bunch of other
  > stuff".  It only really requires libgmp and libltdl.  The versions of
  > these that are in the mainstream distributions should suffice.

  The mainstream distributions "of Linux" :).  My world is about 1/4 Linux
  and doesn't Guile's "u" stand for "ubiquitous"?  ;-)

I'm very sensitive to this, as my world is about 0.01 Linux (mostly
NetBSD).  My point was that modern operating systems usually have some
flavor of package management.  Linux distriutions have ways, FreeBSD
and OpenBSD have ports, NetBSD has pkgsrc, and it seems there are ways
to do this on Solaris and Mac OS X.  Note that pkgsrc works on many
OSes - I believe all of the above, IRIX, and even AIX sort of.

Using the included libraries when the package is not found only seems
reasonable for libraries that will be statically linked into the
installed program, so that doing this doesn't preclude later
installing the needed libraries.  This seems not to be how guile does
it, so that seems to be asking for trouble, but perhaps I misunderstand.

-- 
        Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

rm@seid-online.de writes:

> Can't guile distribute libltdl but only use
> it iff there's no local version found (or if the user states her
> intention by configure magic)?

That is how it works right now.  I am not happy about the fact that
Guile does this silently and that it is a configure decision that
persists in the build tree.

What I would be happy with is to include a copy of libltdl in the
Guile distribution but to have it completely ignored by configure and
the Makefiles.  When libltdl is not found in the system, a message
could be printed that instructs the user to install libltdl, maybe by
using the included sources.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Alhough I agree that it would be good to have a clear configure
> error message when libltdl is not detected.

Of course.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:08:07PM +0100, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> rm@seid-online.de writes:
> 
> > Can't guile distribute libltdl but only use
> > it iff there's no local version found (or if the user states her
> > intention by configure magic)?
> 
> That is how it works right now.  I am not happy about the fact that
> Guile does this silently and that it is a configure decision that
> persists in the build tree.
> 
> What I would be happy with is to include a copy of libltdl in the
> Guile distribution but to have it completely ignored by configure and
> the Makefiles.  When libltdl is not found in the system, a message
> could be printed that instructs the user to install libltdl, maybe by
> using the included sources.

Makes the most sense to me too. This way a user can decide whether
to let her packaging system deal with it or not.

Installing silently libltdl can be a source of woes (even statically
linking it, since Guile can be linked to other apps which themselves
may use a slightly different version of libltdl: watch Apache and
expat coming in differently via different modules: hours of fun).

Regards -- and thanks for the great work again

-- tomás

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <marius.vollmer@uni-dortmund.de> writes:

> What I would be happy with is to include a copy of libltdl in the
> Guile distribution but to have it completely ignored by configure
> and the Makefiles.  When libltdl is not found in the system, a
> message could be printed that instructs the user to install libltdl,
> maybe by using the included sources.

Hmm.  I wonder what the chance is that a user will be able to get hold
of the Guile source, but not the libltdl source.  Is it high enough to
justify keeping a normally unused copy of libltdl in our tree?

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel