On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:39:35AM -0800, Neale Pickett wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You have somehow developed a copy of libdl.so in /usr/lib. It's not > > the right copy; it looks to be from stable instead of unstable. The > > right copy is in /lib. > > > > This has been happening to lots of people over the last six months and > > I have no )(!*&@ idea why! > > I'd be happy to help you track it down, if you like. We can talk on > IRC, I'm on freenode as neale. Email is fine, too, but won't be as > quick.
The question is how it got there. At this point there's probably no way to find out. > I did indeed have a copy of libdl.so in /usr/lib: > > pwd > /fs/mama/usr/lib > > ls -l libdl* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10752 Jan 20 09:29 libdl.a > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jan 23 11:08 libdl.so -> > ../../lib/libdl.so.2 > > I renamed it and tried my compile again: > > mv libdl.so libdl.so.dpkg-horked > ~/tmp $ cc -o cftest cftest.c -ldl > /tmp/cceQnY35.o(.text+0x20): In function `main': > : warning: Using 'dlopen' in statically linked applications requires at > runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking > ~/tmp $ ./cftest || echo gar > ~/tmp $ > > So it looks as though that worked, although I'm baffled by it, since it > was a symlink to the one in /lib. However, gcc still isn't happy about > something. Both libc6 and libc6-dev are version 2.3.3ds1-11. > > Thank you! Wait, that's not right. The libdl.so -> ../../lib/libdl.so.2 symlink is correct. But it should not trigger static linking. Something else on your system is badly broken to produce this behavior. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
