Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 16:12 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >> Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> skribis: >> An issue with the FFI is distros where .la and .so files are only >> available in the -dev package, because then ‘dynamic-link’ won’t work >> unless that -dev package is installed (as recently discussed on >> guile-user.)unanimous > > 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. > Considering Guile would exists in every GNU project (in principle), the > issue may break the packaging policy totally.
(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
pgpZinn6wM7EM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
