Re: About Guile crypto support

[Daniel Hartwig]

On 12 February 2013 12:20, Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> wrote:
> Put that link .so in guile rather than guile-devel is the exception I
> mentioned. The regular packaging policy not allow it.
>

[Again, referring only to Debian.]

Right.  This applies only to libguilereadline-v-18.so, not
libguile-2.0.so.  I had overlooked the former.

Debian policy explicitly says that packaging like this is allowed, as
some libraries and dynamic modules require it in their typical use.

It is true that this would be a /minor/ issue for a pure FFI approach,
as libgcrypt.so would not be available without the -dev package.  In
this case, the binary package for the /Guile module/ just depends on
libgcrypt-dev, no problem.

Anyway, to use FFI, extension, or a hybrid approach is a decision for
whoever actually begins to write these proper bindings.

Regards