On Wednesday 04 July 2001 04:46, David A. Bandel wrote:
> > > libz I understand. lz I do not.
>
> Part of your LDFLAGS. -I/usr/include or -lz. The -I is for includes
> (header files) and the -l is for libraries. To get the library's real
> name, you strip off the lib part. So for libpcap, it's -lpcap, and for
> libz it's -lz. BTW, this is a compression library. But just saying lz
> is someone getting lazy.
It's the lazy bit that threw me. On a reasonable hunch that they really were
talking about libz I created a symlink for it. That alone throws out another
can of worms the libxx.so.1.2.99 -> 1.2 -> 1 -> ? pyramid we currently have
in accessing 'a' library of some sort.
Turns out that RH don't have a libz.so as such. (or more correctly, the rpm
for it doesn't have one). Someone here gave an interesting opinion about the
silly state of -devel libraries and their non-sensical existence. I'm hoping
eventually that the version of a library will be contained as a signature to
each function within the library rather than spaghetti we have now.
--
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
