* libguilereadline load
@ 2013-01-22 15:28 Dmitry Roshchin
2013-01-22 22:09 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Roshchin @ 2013-01-22 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-user
Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead of
"libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-01-22 15:28 libguilereadline load Dmitry Roshchin
@ 2013-01-22 22:09 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2013-01-22 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-user
Hi,
Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
> Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead of
> "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no?
Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl").
The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that
the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads.
When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the
.so.18 file).
HTH,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-01-22 22:09 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
2013-02-01 10:03 ` Nala Ginrut
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Roshchin @ 2013-02-01 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-user
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 23:09:51 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
> > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead
> > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
>
> You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no?
>
> Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl").
> The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that
> the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads.
>
> When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the
> .so.18 file).
>
openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is
contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
@ 2013-02-01 10:03 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-02-01 17:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-02-04 11:14 ` Andy Wingo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Nala Ginrut @ 2013-02-01 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Roshchin; +Cc: guile-user
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:52 +0400, Dmitry Roshchin wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 23:09:51 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
> > > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead
> > > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
> >
> > You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no?
> >
> > Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl").
> > The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that
> > the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads.
> >
> > When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the
> > .so.18 file).
> >
>
> openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is
> contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default.
>
And actually, even Fedora remove *.la too:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
@ludo: Is there any chance to fix it? Folks have to install -devel
packages to run Guile, or there's no *.so file.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
2013-02-01 10:03 ` Nala Ginrut
@ 2013-02-01 17:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-02-01 19:26 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-02-04 11:14 ` Andy Wingo
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2013-02-01 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-user
Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 23:09:51 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
>> > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead
>> > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
>>
>> You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no?
>>
>> Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl").
>> The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that
>> the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads.
>>
>> When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the
>> .so.18 file).
>>
>
> openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is
> contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default.
I see. The problem is that Guile has no way of guessing the .18
extension (it’s a platform-specific extension computed by libtool.)
Debian has a similar policy IIRC, but they ship the .so file as part of
the ‘guile-2.0-libs’ package, perhaps as an exception:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/hurd-i386/guile-2.0-libs/filelist
Perhaps you could suggest that openSUSE do the same?
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-02-01 17:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2013-02-01 19:26 ` Nala Ginrut
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Nala Ginrut @ 2013-02-01 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guile-user
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 18:30 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
>
> > On Tuesday 22 January 2013 23:09:51 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
> >> > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead
> >> > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
> >>
> >> You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no?
> >>
> >> Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl").
> >> The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that
> >> the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads.
> >>
> >> When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the
> >> .so.18 file).
> >>
> >
> > openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is
> > contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default.
>
> I see. The problem is that Guile has no way of guessing the .18
> extension (it’s a platform-specific extension computed by libtool.)
>
> Debian has a similar policy IIRC, but they ship the .so file as part of
> the ‘guile-2.0-libs’ package, perhaps as an exception:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/hurd-i386/guile-2.0-libs/filelist
>
hmm...almost all 'shared lib packaging policy' needs *-dev package
contains the *.so link to a related versioned library. It's not so easy
to persuade them to make an exception if we don't have a solid reason.
Can you tell me how to do a special detect for loading .18? If the
suggestion failed, at least we have a platform specific patch to fix
that.
> Perhaps you could suggest that openSUSE do the same?
>
> Ludo’.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: libguilereadline load
2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
2013-02-01 10:03 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-02-01 17:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2013-02-04 11:14 ` Andy Wingo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2013-02-04 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Roshchin; +Cc: guile-user
Hi Dmitry,
On Fri 01 Feb 2013 10:52, Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> writes:
>> Dmitry Roshchin <dmitry@roshchin.org> skribis:
>> > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead
>> > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
>>
> openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is
> contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default.
In this case, the .so is intended to be a dynamically loaded plugin,
though it can be linked as well. Therefore the .so link should be
included with the normal runtime package, not the devel package. Please
report the bug to OpenSuSE's tracker. Thanks!
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* libguilereadline load
@ 2013-01-22 14:46 Dmitry Roshchin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Roshchin @ 2013-01-22 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-user
Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead of
"libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-04 11:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-22 15:28 libguilereadline load Dmitry Roshchin
2013-01-22 22:09 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-02-01 9:52 ` Dmitry Roshchin
2013-02-01 10:03 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-02-01 17:30 ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-02-01 19:26 ` Nala Ginrut
2013-02-04 11:14 ` Andy Wingo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-01-22 14:46 Dmitry Roshchin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).