[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: stale base libraries v. freshly-built packages
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:43:41AM -0500, John D. Baker wrote:
> >wouldn't work due to being explicitly linked against an older version
> >of some shared libraries (e.g., libssl.so.9) or a library that is no
> >longer part of the distribution (e.g., libexecinfo.so.x.y).
> The primary issue that concerned me was that the "/usr/lib/libssl.so"
> symbolic link pointed to "libssl.so.9.0" which didn't exist. Even more
> troubling was that although the DESTDIR of my build tree had the correct
> target ("libssl.so.10.0"), the ".../etc/mtree/set.base" file showed the
> stale target and the distribution set was created using the stale target.
> A simple non-update build was insufficient to correct the inconsistency.
> After nuking my build tree from the top level (the only way to be sure)
> the subsequent build showed set lists and file names finally to agree,
> using "libssl.so.10.0".
> (This could, of course apply to any other shared library, it's just
> libssl that made itself conspicuous this time.)
The update of OpenSSL requires cleaning both the OpenSSL build
directory and DESTDIR. *Even non-update builds require cleaning
DESTDIR.* Builds done without taking these steps may fail, or in
some cases may succeed and install broken OpenSSL libraries that
cause third-party software to link incorrectly and/or crash.
You're not the only one to have tripped on this.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |