libcom_err.so.3 question: ahem, a newbie question
fedora at warmcat.com
Tue Nov 11 14:10:22 UTC 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 14:01, William Hooper wrote:
> The more likely to happen problem is software relying on something
> provided by libcom_err.so.3 that isn't provided by libcom_err.so.2. So
> you know, six months down the road, when you forgot you made that symlink
> and a newly installed program just keeps bombing out. Then you start
> wasting your time and developer's time trying to troubleshoot it. If you
> search bugzilla, you'll find libcom_err.so.3 is gone. If you have a
> binary RPM that requires it the best coarse of action is to rebuild that
> RPM so it matches your installed libraries.
Can this in fact happen, if the new thing which needs .so.3 is an RPM and
lists it in its RPM dependencies? Would it not complain that according to
its RPM view of the world that is not extant, since no RPM delivered it, and
so not even installing unless overridden?
I take the point that recooking the SRPM is a more complete solution, its news
to me that this would fix library probs like this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the fedora-list