Re: About Guile crypto support

[Nala Ginrut]

在 2013-2-12 AM10:10，"Daniel Hartwig" <address@hidden>写道：
>
> On 11 February 2013 23:23, Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:
> > (First, "all mainstream distros" is only talking about Linux.)
> >
> > This .so=>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 “.so” files shipped in -dev packages are just
> symlinks.  The real “.so.X.Y” 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 packaging
> > policy force *.so be put in -devel packages. Though openSUSE/debian adds
> > the exception for Guile, I believe it's so hard to do that for every
> > packages uses Guile.
>
> What do you mean, “adds the exception for Guile”?

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.
>