Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The two developers who have thought most on this subject in the past
> are Marius (Vollmer) and Rob (Browning), and they've both been out of
> circulation for the last week or so. No doubt one of them will
> respond when they catch up with the list.
I ju
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "now what I need to do to
> install guile 1.8.1 as /usr/bin/guile-1.8.1 and guile 1.8.2 as
> /usr/bin/guile-1.8.2"
Install under different $prefix.
> Where configure.ac/Makefile.am
> should put libmysuperextension.la (+ .so, etc) file ?
Under the $pr
INSTALL file explains how this information is supposed to be delivered
to libltdl (with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). No information about how this
information is supposed to be found by configure.ac/Makefile.am in
extension. Neither in documentation of guile nor in code of existing
extensions.
IM
On 10/9/05, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> GUILE=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile \
> >> GUILE_CONFIG=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile-config \
> >> GUILE_TOOLS=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile-tools \
>
> I would set the PATH, this probably wor
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> GUILE=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile \
>> GUILE_CONFIG=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile-config \
>> GUILE_TOOLS=/myexperiments/guile/bin/guile-tools \
I would set the PATH, this probably works though.
> $ /myexperiments/guile/bin/guile -c '(use myexten
On 10/5/05, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH is linux'ism,
>
> Actually I believe it comes from svr4 (maybe earlier too, not sure).
>
> (Incidentally, nobody can tell if you're asking a question, advocating
> your particular c
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH is linux'ism,
Actually I believe it comes from svr4 (maybe earlier too, not sure).
(Incidentally, nobody can tell if you're asking a question, advocating
your particular change, expressing new-user frustration, or just
generally bangin
On 10/3/05, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Easy: there are no easy
> > way to install two snaphots of GUILE side-by-side. So such a need is
> > quite real (unless development will be frozen totally).
>
> The developers manage. Even I manag
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think difficulties with two .la's at the same time has been a
> more-or-less known issue for quite a while. There may be plans afoot,
> but you might have observed the pace of libtool development is, well,
> glacial. (No disrespect to the libtool develo
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Easy: there are no easy
> way to install two snaphots of GUILE side-by-side. So such a need is
> quite real (unless development will be frozen totally).
The developers manage. Even I manage to run 3 versions.
[guile-gnome env var setups]
> is *NOT* a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> In fact, Libtool's versioning mechanism already makes this possible for
> programs: the loader and/or dynamic linker chooses the one version of
> the library the program expects to be linked against.
Oh, well, libtool only wraps what ld.so does, but
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/29/05, Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, I'm all in favor of having your patch (or something equivalent)
>> applied. I guess you'll need to /kindly/ ask the developers for further
>> reviewing and see what needs to be done so that
Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remember if you want to call a C code module directly from a C
> mainline then you need something the ordinary loader can cope with
> too.
>
> (If setting up something clean and portable for this stuff was easy it
> would have already been done.)
You'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> Anyway, we'd first need `libltdl' to allow for such things.
Remember if you want to call a C code module directly from a C
mainline then you need something the ordinary loader can cope with
too.
(If setting up something clean and portable for this s
On 9/29/05, Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In short: do not bother too much with understanding of my default
> > locations choice.
>
> Sure.
>
> So, I'm all in favor of having your patch (or something equivalent)
> applied. I guess you'll need to /kindly/ ask the developers for fu
Hi Vorfeed,
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4. Actual contents of default directory list is not important. Only
> two requirements:
> A. It must not be empty - this way there are place to put default
> libraries like readline.
> B. It must be modifyable at runtime - this way comp
On 9/28/05, Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Of course it must - how else can it load them ? With my patch it knows
> > about few default places and can be instructed about other places in
> > nice shemely way.
>
> Yes, your patch
Hi,
Vorfeed Canal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course it must - how else can it load them ? With my patch it knows
> about few default places and can be instructed about other places in
> nice shemely way.
Yes, your patch seems to be one possible solution. However, why not use
`pkglibdir' (
18 matches
Mail list logo
