| Summary: | libswipl.so should be in /usr/lib | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Till Hofmann <thofmann> |
| Component: | pl | Assignee: | Petr Pisar <ppisar> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 26 | CC: | bagnara, mefoster, ppisar |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-05-29 11:32:03 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
The issue is that upstream is strongly against it <http://www.swi-prolog.org/build/guidelines.txt> and applications are advised to use swipl-ld tool for compilation <http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=plld>. Moreover you still have to locate header files somehow. Feel free to contact upstream and persuade him about benefits of installing library and header files into Linux standard paths. (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1) > The issue is that upstream is strongly against it > <http://www.swi-prolog.org/build/guidelines.txt> and applications are > advised to use swipl-ld tool for compilation > <http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=plld>. Moreover you still have > to locate header files somehow. Feel free to contact upstream and persuade > him about benefits of installing library and header files into Linux > standard paths. Thanks for the links, I didn't know about that. Still, I think their guidelines are well-intended but ill-advised: "each distribution has established one or more packages for SWI-Prolog independently based on their own conventions" This is just wrong, there is one well-known location (maybe two if you consider /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64) for shared libraries, and every distribution adheres to it. Moreover, other distros don't stick to the upstream guidelines either. Debian: https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/swi-prolog-nox/filelist Ubuntu: http://packages.ubuntu.com/yakkety/amd64/swi-prolog-nox/filelist This means upstream guidelines are not enforced anyway and only cause what they're trying to avoid, namely libraries in different locations depending on the distro. I also don't see any advantage. With the lib in /usr/lib/swipl-%{version}, you need to use pkgconfig anyway because of the version in the path. Moving libswipl to /usr/lib doesn't change that. On the other hand, having libswipl in /usr/lib makes dlopen 'just work', no need to add some custom path to the library path. But maybe I'm missing something here. Finally, the python library *recommended by upstream* doesn't stick to the guidelines either and expects the library to be in the library path. You don't have to write it here. Write it to the upstream. For Fedora it means to develop an maintain pretty invasive patch for upstream build system that upstream never accepts. I will look at it when I have a free time. You still have to pass a file name to the dlopen(3). The soname changes each major version, so you still needs to pass a value at build time. It's not a big difference whether it's a soname or an absolute path. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'. This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 26 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-05-29. Fedora 26 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Description of problem: Other applications should be able to link against libswipl. Therefore, libswipl.so should be placed in /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64). Currently, it's placed in /usr/lib64/swipl-%{version}/lib/x86_64-linux/libswipl.so. This means linking against libswipl is not possible (without pkgconfig). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): pl-0:7.2.3-3 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. ldconfig -v | grep libswipl Actual results: No library found. Expected results: It should print the library. Additional info: Linking with pkgconfig works, but not all applications use pkgconfig, e.g. pyswip ignores pkgconfig.