Subject: Re: Shared library symlinks and libtool
To: Nick Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 01/24/2001 09:35:46
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Nick Hudson wrote:
> Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > Hi!
> > After Alistair's recent change to make ELF PLISTs default, some
> > programs have problems in the installation phase. In particular, I
> > think of devel/xdelta (and some others) where the problem lies in the
> > fact that they install a library 'libfoo.so.1.2.3', and libtool only
> > generates symlinks for 'libfoo.so.1' and 'libfoo.so'.
> > What is the proper target to fix -- the PLISTs (removing the
> > 'libfoo.so.1.2' entries) or libtool (making it create the
> > 'libfoo.so.1.2' symlinks)?
> This IMO is a bug in the Makefile.am of xdelta.
> libxdelta_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:22.0
> The 22.0 is an incorrect minor number. It should be changed to
> libxdelta_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:22
> are there any other examples?
there are some other examples (non-libtool I think) of pkgs which don't
automatically install ELF symlinks. security/openssl and security/PAM
come to mind.