[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Mar 12 14:31:18 2001 
Subject:Re: Installing poplog: some bugs and some thoughts 
From:ug55aes 
Volume-ID:1010312.06 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:16:53PM +0000, Stephen Isard wrote:
> I've just logged in on a RH6.2 and a RH7.0 machine on our network,
> neither of which has poplog installed, and both have the link setup
> that Aaron reports.  I ran 'rpm -q' on the 6.2 machine and found that
> /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so comes from the package XFree86-devel-3.3.6-20,
> while /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 comes from XFree86-libs-3.3.6-20.  So
> whatever is going on, it looks unlikely that the links are there
> specifically in aid of poplog, or that they were inserted by hand by
> local computing officers.  It is not even obvious to me on this evidence
> that the setup is the idea of RedHat, as opposed to the XFree86 Project.

Having been home and had a thorough look at my /usr/lib directory, I've 
found:

191 files matching *.so.*, of which 102 were symlinks
44 files matching *.so, of which 26 are symlinks

This is on a Debian 2.2 system.  Save to say, I'm confused.  All I can 
think is that maybe the .so files are an older naming system, being fazed 
out?  If that's true, then Debian and Mandrake have just taken the 
opportunity earlier than Red Hat.

<snip - synopsis of dynamic linking>

In that case, I'll start reading up on relinking now and see if doing that 
on my system helps any.  If it does, it might be worth thinking about what 
to do about the proper Poplog - if it's being compiled on a Red Hat 
system, then there may be other programs requiring the .so links, so just 
deleting those files might cause problems.

	- Andrew