libguilereadline load

libguilereadline load

[Dmitry Roshchin]

Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead of 
"libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile  version - 2.0.7.

libguilereadline load

[Dmitry Roshchin]

Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead of 
"libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile  version - 2.0.7.

Re: libguilereadline load

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

Re: libguilereadline load

[Dmitry Roshchin]

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.

Re: libguilereadline load

[Nala Ginrut]

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.

Re: libguilereadline load

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

Re: libguilereadline load

[Nala Ginrut]

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’.
> 
> 

Re: libguilereadline load

[Andy Wingo]

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/