On 2001.06.03 10:36:24 +0200 Christopher James Lahey wrote:
> I would highly suggest that you not link evolution against 3.2.9. It's
> clearly your choice, but I'm not going to remove the checks from
> evolution since using evolution with libdb 3.2.9 is not a supported
> option.
yeah i found out myself that the addressbook dissapeared. sad to hear that
theres only support for the old berkley library.
> > another thing i wanted to mention. now that you use a newer libgal, i
> > leeched a new CVS version and it created libgal.so libgal.so.8 but
> > evolution still links against libgal.so.7 i already made a ln -s to so.7
> > but thats not the point.
>
> In this case you're using a version of evolution that is supposed to
> link to an old version of gal. Making this symlink may cause errors
> since libgal.so.7 is not binary compatible with libgal.so.8. If you
> recompile evolution it should link with the new version of libgal.
aehm nonono...
a) i deleted the old libgal.so.7 libraries and includes
b) leeched myself a new CVS version of it compiled and installed it from
scratch.
c) theres no old libgal REMAINING nothing to make this clear.
d) but after compiling either evolution or other programms it seems that
they request libgal.so.7 no matter if they are recompiled against
libgal.so.8 or not.
e) since i deleted libgal.so.7 completely, its not present. so i needed
to link libgal.so.8 to libgal.so.7... means evolution got compiled
against libgal.so.8 but under unknown circumstances it requests so.7
after i did the link everything worked fine (no wonder because it got
compiled against so.8).
f) i think its a bug in the libgal CVS some numbers got mixxed i think.
--
Name....: Ali Akcaagac
Status..: Student Of Computer & Economic Science
E-Mail..: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW.....: http://www.fh-wilhelmshaven.de/~akcaagaa
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
