On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 11:54:35AM +0100, Aaron Sloman wrote:
> > > [....]
> > >[Actually, I correct myself -- I have libXt.so.6 in .../lib. There
> > >is no link from an unnumbered filename. I don't think this should be
> > >a problem -- the system was built from RPM this way, so I imagine
> > >it's correct.]
>
> I have met this before. During installation of RedHat you get
> various options to install packages with or without support for
> 'development'.
>
> Some of them (e.g. motif and some of the X libraries) are
> installed without the .so link to the actual library archive if
> you don't select the 'development' option.
In fact, after shutting down for the night, I realized that this was
probably the reason. I had loaded most of the standard 'development'
stuff, but didn't see myself doing any X programming, so I left that
out.
>
> It *may* be possible to fix this by editing the file
> /etc/ld.so.conf and running 'ldconfig' (both as root), but I
> don't really know.
This sounded like it ought to work, but it doesn't! Apaprently whatever
options you use, ldconfig only updates *existing* links -- it doesn't
add new unnumbered onesi (and according to the docs doesn't touch
symbolic ones).
>
> What does work is installing the .so symbolic link by hand.
> [....]
> On all the redhat machines I use these are symbolic links
Strangely. this machine (our lab server -- not the machine I'm installing
poplog on) has them as hard links, and it was also built from RPMs, so
I assumed that was standard.
In any case, I decided that I might as well waste the 9MB of "development
space" and just installed the whole XFree86-devel package. It did fix
the problem -- and the new entries *are* symbolic links!
>
> I suppose I could change it to do that for all of the above. It
> would require modifying the code that generates the link command
> script, to look in the appropriate directory.
Perhaps you could simply add a note identifying the problem in the
README. Users can then decide whether to load the whole 9(MB) yards,
or add links by hand as you described [snipped].
>
>
> I think that if you fix just the ones listed above, installation
> of poplog will work.
Yes. Everything looks good now. As usual (:-)), thanks for your
very rapid response.
Cheers,
-- Pete --
|