libcom_err.so.3 question: ahem, a newbie question

[Andy Green]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/sO3OjKeDCxMJCTIRAmsZAJ9xt4QlPE7Q1OBvqJV5WMJNx0L0SwCZAaPd
v5OK6YtIfMxM7o4A38oNnj0=
=NWpb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----