ITP: Guile 1.5.6

[Charles Wilson]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

>>Also, will libguile14-devel be able to peacefully coexist
>>with, say, libguile15-devel?  Or should the -devel package be called
>>"guile-devel' instead, so that only the latest version of the
>>headers/statlibs/implibs are ever installed?
>>
>>To me, it sure looks like the latter is true:
>>
> 
> Yes, most probably.  That's what Debian does, and
> cygwin.com/setup.html advises to look over there.  In Debian, it's
> called libguile-dev.  That combined with the example of
> libnetpmb10-dev[el] (ahum), led me to choose libguileX-dev.


Correct.  libnetpbm10-devel is wrong.  It should be netpbm-devel (or 
maybe libnetpbm-devel)  Thanks (but I'll leave that change up to you. <g>)

 
>>So, this package should probably be
>>   guile-devel
>>NOT
>>   libguile14-dev
>>
> 
> Hmm, I'd say maybe libguile-dev, but I don't care too much?  Anyone
> else feels like arguing?


whatever-devEL.  Consistency good.


>>There are also four bigger problems:
>>
>>1) In libguile14-dev (guile-devel), these files:
>>     usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-lt-.a
>>     usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-lt-.a
>>
> [..]
> 
>>I'm almost positive that something is going terribly wrong here.
>>Those names just do NOT look right.
>>
> 
> Hmm, they look odd indeed.  I'm sorry to let that slip.  I'm so very
> much not charmed by automake and libtool.  I'll have to investigate.
> (..)  Turns out that I goofed, trying to fix a build problem by
> transplanting Makfile.am from CVS.


Mebbe.


Check the libxxxxx_LDFLAGS in Makefile.am for those libraries -- are 
they using
   --version-info a:b:c

or

   --release a.b.c
??

(see my comments on libiconv; shared libs with '--release' style 
versioning have to be handled differently than those with 
'--version-info' style versioning.)

--Chuck