mhh... Forgot early versions of DirectX then? A higher version of DirectX always
got overwritten by a lower version, if you installed a game that shipped with a
lower version than the one curently installed on the system. And the fun part
was: it always asked you if you wanted to overwrite the current version before
it did, but never ever did anything usefull with that info. "Do you want to
overwrite your current version of DirectX? [y/n]" --> n --> "Installing DirectX
now..."
But you're right; it is damn annoying. I believe it's because sometimes a higher
version of some library in linux discontinues support for functions included in
an earlier version, and therefore using the "at least" numbering interfere with
the proper compilation of your code.
But then again; I've been up all night, and I'm just theorizing about
this. Probably nothing I say right now makes sense, and it's a much more
sophisticated plot involving martian invaders, custard pie and 3 cups of hot
water. ;)
On Apr 5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> .. . . this trick almost always works fine when going in this direction.
>
> (ln -s lib.so.new lib.so.old)
>
> I don't know why packages check for particular numbers rather than
> checking for "at least" this number, which would make a lot more sense.
> It's rather annoying. (And one thing that Windows apps usually don't
> suffer from!)
>
>
--
Rial Juan <http://nighty.ulyssis.org>
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Belgium tel: (++32) 89/856533
ulyssis system admininstrator <http://www.ulyssis.org>
The little critters in nature; they don't know they're ugly.
That's very funny... A fly marying a bumble-bee...
------------------------------------------------------------
Sign the petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
Help bring us more Linux Drivers
