Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=59939 --- shadow/59939 2005-06-26 12:54:18.000000000 -0400 +++ shadow/59939.tmp.8468 2005-06-26 13:24:17.000000000 -0400 @@ -6107,6 +6107,10 @@ Additional for Oracle 10g: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root admin 51 Apr 30 21:23 /opt/oracle/product/10.1.0/lib/ libclntsh.dylib -> /opt/oracle/product/10.1.0/lib/libclntsh.dylib.10.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 oracle oinstall 14530464 Apr 30 19:52 /opt/oracle/product/10.1.0/lib/ libclntsh.dylib.10.1 + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-26 13:24 ------- +So we clearly can't rely on the .so number. The question is: for +oracle, is the unversioned number being around the status quo? _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
