Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes:
> AFAICS, guile-1.6 received no .la removal bug, but, unless there are
> really packages build-depending on guile-1.6 which install .la files
> referencing libguile.la, this bug should have been filed on guile-1.6
> instead. The current scan result show this line regarding Guile:
FWIW: as soon as I finish guile-2.0 (next on the list), and get it into
unstable, so we'll finally have a newer release with threading support,
I'm going to start the archive removal process for guile-1.6.
> So it might be the case that the .la file removal in guile-1.8 breaks
> any of the mentioned packages. For g-wrap and guile-gnome-platform, I
> can (and will) take care of it without needing you to take any action,
> but in case you (or anyone else) discovers FTBFSs in one of gnucash,
> guile-pg or xchat-guile because of the missing libguile.la, either the
> maintainers of these packages need to take action soonish (clearing
> dependency_libs or removing the .la files altogether), or you have to
> put libguile.la back, with emptied dependency_libs.
>
>> Also note that 1.8.8+1-{1,2} still had the .so files that Guile tries to
>> dlopen() in guile-1.8-dev. So for those versions, unless guile-1.8-dev
>> was installed, operations like (use-modules (srfi srfi-13)) would fail.
>> For -3, I moved them to guile-1.8-libs, which should fix the problem.
>>
> Good to know.
I wonder if the move of the .so files fixes the problem for everyone.
Any idea? More generally, what do you think would be the correct
solution at this point wrt Guile 1.8?
Thanks for the help
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
