On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:13:22PM -0500, Johnny Lam wrote:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
> >executive summary: having foo.la in PLIST is interpreted as also
> >having all the referenced files, and if foo.la is a symlink to bar.la,
> >pkg_install and pkg_delete complain about overwritten/missing files.
> [snip]
> >In guile-pg's world view (and in the guile-pg's mainainter's forked
> >guile), binary guile modules should be named with just the module
> >name.  In guile 1.6.x (current FSF stable), the binary guile module
> >'(foo bar baz)' is looked for in foo/bar/libbaz.la.  Earlier I sent a
> >bug report to guile-pg, resulting in the compatibility symlink.
> >
> >So, the automatic .la PLIST handling is dysfunctionally smart here.
> >Is there a way to turn it off for a given file?  Should
> >scripts/print-la-libnames simply not expand .la files that are
> >symlinks?
> 
> I think that your suggestion of not expanding .la files that are 
> symlinks is the right one.

I've just committed this change.  Your package should work without
needing other PLIST fixes.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>