On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:07:13PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:03:18AM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > > > Hi, ĸen > > Missed that part - thanks :) > Intereesting. I have > $ls -l /usr/lib/libjpeg.so* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -> > libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 -> > libjpeg.so.8.4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 297681 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 258534 Aug 25 01:14 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.4.0 > > So anything using libjpeg.so.8 would be using 8.4.0 from jpegsrc > instead of 8.0.2 from libjpeg-turbo. Which means that my testing > of 'display' from ImageMagick was picking up the old version. I > wonder if something in xulrunner links to .so.8 instead of .so ? > That might be interesting enough for me to try testing it (not > tonight, and maybe not tomorrow). > Well, it was interesting enough that I _did_ try it out tonight, on the same box but with a system from June (so, mostly similar to 7.2).
First, it still showed the problem with the system libjpeg using the jpegsrc version for .so.8. [ 8.4.0 instead of 8.0.2 ]. Scrolling, where available, or reloading the page, didn't fix it. The following libs link to libjpeg.so.8 : libdbusservice.so, libmozgnome.so (those are in the components directory of xulrunner), libxpcom.so and libxul.so. Remaking the symlink to 8.0.2 does fix it. Also tested with display and the gimp (exporting to jpeg). All I've got to do now is to add some code to my upgrade script to check if .so and .so.8 point to different places, and fix it when necessary. Many thanks. ĸen, no longer grumpy -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
