Re: About Guile crypto support

[Daniel Hartwig]

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.

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”?  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.