Re: [TCLUG:9630] libs

[ryan goldberg <rgoldber@d.umn.edu>]

> > I run into this problem quite a few times.  I want to install something,
> > and it wants libfoo.so.1, and I've got libfoo.so.2.  The ./configure
> > script fails, (or make sometimes) or the rpm balks.  
> 
> For good reason.  A bumped version number like this typically means that
> signiicant changes have been made to the library, including changes to
> the API.  If you try to intermix libraries with application code they

Part of me thought this was the case, but another part said "nah, everyone
make their libs backward compatible"   hahahahaha.  That same part of me
insisted that I needn't spend the time downloading old libs when I've
already got these shiny current ones.  Anyhoo, off to get libfoo.so.1

 
> As an aside, the libtool info docs go into some detail about library

Some docs to cozy up with tonight (after calc homework) 

> be symlinked to an abbreviated version, e.g. libfoo.1.15.4 -> libfoo.1.  

That's the other way around, though, isn't it?  So a program can use
libfoo.so.1, but actually uses libfoo.so.1.15.6

> > I've tried using
> > symlinks "ln -s libfoo.so.2 libfoo.so.1" and of course then running
> > ldconfig.  This never works. 
> 

I guess I'm glad I couldn't dupe ldconfig.


Thanks for the nice answer.  


-ryan         be kind.