Hi folks,
We have a problem with 'make install' in the libs dir. More explicitly, after a 'make & make install', I have this in /usr/local/lib:
[dimi@dimi unicode]$ ls -l /usr/local/lib/libwine* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 319332 Oct 27 12:01 /usr/local/lib/libwine_port.a lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Oct 28 14:38 /usr/local/lib/libwine.so -> libwine.so.1.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 249859 Oct 28 14:37 /usr/local/lib/libwine.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 238529 Feb 20 2003 /usr/local/lib/libwine.so.1.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Oct 28 14:38 /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so -> libwine_unicode.so.1.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1289718 Oct 28 14:37 /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1187040 Feb 20 2003 /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so.1.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1867136 Oct 28 14:37 /usr/local/lib/libwine_uuid.a
That is to say, both libwine.so and libwine_unicode.so are fubared. They point to old libs. Shouldn't they just point to the .1 versions?
It's true, I didn't do a 'make install-dev', but this is counter intuitive because 'make install' does install the headers, and libwine_uuid.a, and libwine_port.a, and winegcc, and so on.
"Dimitrie O. Paun" dpaun@rogers.com writes:
That is to say, both libwine.so and libwine_unicode.so are fubared. They point to old libs. Shouldn't they just point to the .1 versions?
Yes, and it seems to work fine here. Could you show us the exact commands you ran and the relevant make output?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Yes, and it seems to work fine here. Could you show us the exact commands you ran and the relevant make output?
Well, I did a standard build:
configure --with-nptl --silent && make -s depend && make -s
than installed it (as root):
make -s install
to fix the problem, I had to do:
cd libs/; make -s install-dev
"Dimitrie O. Paun" dimi@intelliware.ca writes:
Well, I did a standard build:
configure --with-nptl --silent && make -s depend && make -s
than installed it (as root):
make -s install
My guess is that ldconfig has messed with the symlinks.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
My guess is that ldconfig has messed with the symlinks.
Maybe because I have the old libwine*.so.1.0 in there... I'll get rid of them, sorry for the false alarm.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Dimitrie O. Paun