The "make xconfig" command tried to link to "libXi.so".
I think this is actually a kernel bug; the binary this
make command builds should try to link to some "soname"
such as "libXi.so.6" instead, shouldn't it?
The work-around was to manually create the missing symlink
for "libXi.so". I suspect other distro's install that
symlink automatically so maybe that's why the bug was
not discovered. But I believe it is correct to say all
applications should use a soname (including the major
version number), and not just the "linker" name (the
name ending in ".so" with no version numbers).
Or am I missing something?
--
Wayne Pollock
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wayne Pollock<[email protected]> wrote:
> The work-around was to manually create the missing symlink
> for "libXi.so". ?I suspect other distro's install that
> symlink automatically so maybe that's why the bug was
> not discovered. ?But I believe it is correct to say all
> applications should use a soname (including the major
> version number), and not just the "linker" name (the
> name ending in ".so" with no version numbers).
>
> Or am I missing something?
ldconfig should create those symlinks for you automatically. Unless
it's looking for the 32-bit version for some reason and you have a
64-bit system. Then there's something else going on...
-Dave
On 07/10/2009 04:15 PM, Wayne Pollock wrote:
> The "make xconfig" command tried to link to "libXi.so".
> I think this is actually a kernel bug; the binary this
> make command builds should try to link to some "soname"
> such as "libXi.so.6" instead, shouldn't it?
No, applications are generally supposed to link to the plain name, and
the resulting binary will end up linked to the version-specific name
because of the symlink. Applications don't generally need to know what
version of the library they're linking against, if they care they can
usually figure it out from the headers they are including.
>
> The work-around was to manually create the missing symlink
> for "libXi.so". I suspect other distro's install that
> symlink automatically so maybe that's why the bug was
> not discovered. But I believe it is correct to say all
> applications should use a soname (including the major
> version number), and not just the "linker" name (the
> name ending in ".so" with no version numbers).
>
> Or am I missing something?
Not a bug, the symlink is supposed to be there. (Could be you need to
install some devel package to get it..)