Thank you for your review!

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:

>> +       (snippet
>> +        '(let ((p (open-file "argon2.pc" "a")))
> ...                                          ^ why?
>
>> +           (begin
>> +             (display
>> +              (string-append "prefix=/usr/local\n"
>> +                             "exec_prefix=${prefix}\n"
>> +                             "includedir=${prefix}/include\n"
>> +                             "libdir=${prefix}/lib\n\n"
>> +                             "Name: Argon2\n"
>> +                             "Description: "
>> +                             "The Argon2 password hashing algorithm\n"
>> +                             "Version: 1.0.0\n"
>> +                             "Cflags: -I${includedir}/\n"
>> +                             "Libs: -L${libdir} -largon2\n") p)
>> +             (close-output-port p))))
>
> Ok but please try to upstream this as well.

OK, I will look into that.

>
>> +               (zero? (system* "ln" "-s"
>> +                               (string-append out "/lib/libargon2.so")
>> +                               (string-append out "/lib/libargon2.so.0")))
>
> The result of this will be ignored. Did you mean "(and ...)"?

Oops! Yes, I will send an updated patch later today.

>
>> +               (zero? (system* ; Fix compatability for libtool based builds.
>> +                       "ln" "-s"
>> +                       (string-append out "/lib/libargon2.so")
>> +                       (string-append out "/lib/libargon2.so.0.0.0")))))))))
>
> Doesn't this have a soversion other than 0? I mean it's OK, I'm just
> asking to be sure - because the pkg-config file lists 1.0.0 and the
> name of the pkg-config file contains no soversion at all.

I am actually not sure about this.  I noticed that one of the packages
that depends on opendht (I think libring, but need to make sure) is
looking for 'libargon2.so.0.0.0'.  I did not find a way to convince it
to use 'libargon2.so' other than creating this symlink.  I am not sure
if this is a good/acceptable way to solve this, it is probably not the
intended way.  I also could not find documentation on this issue and i
am not sure which part of the toolchain is responsible for making the
'.so.X.X.X' versions of a library.

Thank you!

Best,
Lukas