From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nala Ginrut Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: About Guile crypto support Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:20:22 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1359896146.2754.19.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871ucvof60.fsf@gnu.org> <1360032192.2754.61.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwvisqwj.fsf@gnu.org> <878v6yojxg.fsf@gnu.org> <87sj55bjxz.fsf@gnu.org> <1360576299.5068.20.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f6c32131db04d57f58a8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360642831 18949 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2013 04:20:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:20:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Daniel Hartwig Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 12 05:20:52 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U57MQ-0003js-8D for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:20:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57933 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U57M6-0005BZ-V4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:20:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U57M3-0005BF-3y for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:20:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U57M0-0006tv-7W for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:20:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:55063) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U57Lz-0006tk-Ta for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:20:24 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id d17so3468239eek.24 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:20:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Qvo9W+OnFbGHAtZyZmYMWN6t7ogh5GWpy7iQCq/HyPs=; b=TSLO2k+9YO+Y9jCOy8UwmcBQ3Kx8HYy/Cp4PGsbCOY0lkw5V26YAInAk3VQIw5WGNo nYTM0qN1c0RT941CEbfx5EcqRrgaj/ME6kGkBU5huVR+TQBjUfcAbzYLwS/01p989sOZ 4ieZ2cZfOeunKj8u12ckpFleLzV7GI7xk4XvrtjQhUw38Lij4W8HDoC3eebF7A0817Lw p9kiws612Lw55IQnQK1rlQaqQzANtUYjmqsVQlP6l7R8SYU5T2TvNJsKmxyEWJoPdvVR 3KhjA59jZoYUgNCnis3D5oxA/ts1dt/PI626QlPnK9Q5p7uN3tscceZtsg3LCOBffA6b dtdw== X-Received: by 10.14.2.5 with SMTP id 5mr57575564eee.30.1360642822975; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:20:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.223.102.131 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:20:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.223.102.131 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:20:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 74.125.83.51 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15731 Archived-At: --047d7b66f6c32131db04d57f58a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E5=9C=A8 2013-2-12 AM10:10=EF=BC=8C"Daniel Hartwig" =E5= =86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > On 11 February 2013 23:23, Greg Troxel wrote: > > (First, "all mainstream distros" is only talking about Linux.) > > > > This .so=3D>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 > > [Assuming a Debian-centric view.] > > To be clear, the =E2=80=9C.so=E2=80=9D files shipped in -dev packages are= just > symlinks. The real =E2=80=9C.so.X.Y=E2=80=9D are shipped in the correspo= nding library > package, as makes sense. > Yes, I'm talking about this *.so link. Not .so.X.Y > Nala Ginrut wrote earlier: > > This could be a real issue since almost all mainstream distros packagin= g > > policy force *.so be put in -devel packages. Though openSUSE/debian add= s > > the exception for Guile, I believe it's so hard to do that for every > > packages uses Guile. > > What do you mean, =E2=80=9Cadds the exception for Guile=E2=80=9D? Put that link .so in guile rather than guile-devel is the exception I mentioned. The regular packaging policy not allow it. The guile-2.0-dev > package contains the same /symlink/ as other -dev packages do. The real > .so is in guile-2.0-libs. I do not see how that is different to any > other library/dev package pair. > --047d7b66f6c32131db04d57f58a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=E5=9C=A8 2013-2-12 AM10:10=EF=BC=8C"Daniel Hartwig" <mandyke@gmail.com>=E5=86=99=E9=81=93= =EF=BC=9A
>
> On 11 February 2013 23:23, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> > (First, "all mainstream distros" is only talking about = Linux.)
> >
> > This .so=3D>devel does not make sense to me. =C2=A0 I thought = the point was
> > that -devel split things that people who wanted to compile agains= t the
> > package needed, but not things needed to run. =C2=A0So if a .so i= s used by a
> > program that has been compiled, then it needs to be in the non-de= vel
> > package. =C2=A0I would expect that .so generally belongs in the n= on-devel
> > package, and that the -devel package would have .a and .h.
> >
> > FWIW, BSD packaging systems do not have this -devel notion
>
> [Assuming a Debian-centric view.]
>
> To be clear, the =E2=80=9C.so=E2=80=9D files shipped in -dev packages = are just
> symlinks. =C2=A0The real =E2=80=9C.so.X.Y=E2=80=9D are shipped in the = corresponding library
> package, as makes sense.
>

Yes, I'm talking about this *.so link. Not .so.X.Y

> Nala Ginrut wrote earlier:
> > This could be a real issue since almost all mainstream distros pa= ckaging
> > policy force *.so be put in -devel packages. Though openSUSE/debi= an adds
> > the exception for Guile, I believe it's so hard to do that fo= r every
> > packages uses Guile.
>
> What do you mean, =E2=80=9Cadds the exception for Guile=E2=80=9D?

Put that link .so in guile rather than guile-devel is the ex= ception I mentioned. The regular packaging policy not allow it.

=C2=A0The guile-2.0-dev
> package contains the same /symlink/ as other -dev packages do. =C2=A0T= he real
> .so is in guile-2.0-libs. =C2=A0I do not see how that is different to = any
> other library/dev package pair.
>

--047d7b66f6c32131db04d57f58a8--