On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:52 +0400, Dmitry Roshchin wrote: > On Tuesday 22 January 2013 23:09:51 Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Dmitry Roshchin <dmi...@roshchin.org> skribis: > > > Is it normal, that guile tries to load "libguilereadline-v-18.so" instead > > > of "libguilereadline-v-18.so.18"? Guile version - 2.0.7. > > > > You normally have both, as well as libguilereadline-v-18.la, no? > > > > Guile uses ltdl for dynamic loading (info "(libtool) Using libltdl"). > > The rule is to first search for .la files. The .la file tells ltdl that > > the real library is the .so.18 file, which ltdl then loads. > > > > When the .la file is missing, ltdl tries the .so file instead (not the > > .so.18 file). > > > > openSUSE packaging policy requires to remove .la files. And .so file is > contained in guile-devel package. So it doesn't work by default. >
And actually, even Fedora remove *.la too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines @ludo: Is there any chance to fix it? Folks have to install -devel packages to run Guile, or there's no *.so file.
