Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Chris Staub wrote:
Krishna Ganugapati wrote:
Figured it out. zlib's website lists zlib.1.2.3 not the zlib.1.2.2 as
required by LFS6.1 - as a result one of the soft links is libz.so ->
libz.so.1.2.2 - but the built versions are libz.so.1.2.3
I now understand what FBBG means :-)
Krishna
I don't think that's the problem. I just built an LFS 6.1 system, and
used zlib 1.2.3 (in fact the 6.1 errata recommends it) with no problems.
Chris, if the symlink points to libz.so.1.2.2 but the system only
contains libz.so.1.2.3 then at best anything linking against libz will
link against the static library. Normally, we can expect the package to
handle this sort of thing, but with libz we move the shared object
ourselves.
Quite why we do this, and indeed why we even bother to install the
static library, is one of the things I've never got around to
investigating ;)
Ken
I am not sure I understand what you're saying. If zlib 1.2.3 was
installed, then the 1.2.2 library and symlink should never exist anyway.
Hmmm, after looking at the book I see what you mean. The book's
instructions still mention symlinking to /lib/libz.so.1.2.2, so the
errata should probably mention that. Still, as I said, I did an lfs 6.1
installation using zlib 1.2.3 (and even forgot to change the symlink
location to .so.1.2.3) but it still worked fine. Weird...
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
