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

[Globe Trotter]

--- William Hooper <whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Andy Green  said:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 12:32, John Hodrien wrote:
> >
> >> Once you've got an RPM database that only loosely reflects what you've
> >> actually got installed you'll get into this situation more and more.
> >
> > Wow, I guess you never had to touch a .tar.gz, or a binary-only thing like
> > flash or nVidia...  or pull something from CVS and cook it to get a broken
> > thing working... Welcome To The Real World, Neo, where not everything you
> > need is packaged.
> >
> >> Or maybe people just enjoy living in a world of pain?
> >
> > I'm happy when I can get on with my work with a minimum of detours into
> > mysteries.  If a later RPM with a real .so.3 wants to crap on my symlink
> > I'm
> > happy.
> >
> 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.
> 

Do I need the SRPM for that then? I only have an RPM. Is it possible to rebuild
using that and changing the dependency to libcom_err.so.3? 

I decided against installing the new krb5-workstation when FC1 came up. Can I
now not just install the old krb5-workstation and get a "better" solution to
the problem.

Thanks and best wishes!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree