Dmitry Roshchin <dmi...@roshchin.org> skribis: > 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.
I see. The problem is that Guile has no way of guessing the .18 extension (it’s a platform-specific extension computed by libtool.) Debian has a similar policy IIRC, but they ship the .so file as part of the ‘guile-2.0-libs’ package, perhaps as an exception: http://packages.debian.org/sid/hurd-i386/guile-2.0-libs/filelist Perhaps you could suggest that openSUSE do the same? Ludo’.
