libcom_err.so.3 question: ahem, a newbie question

[William Hooper]

Andy Green  said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 12:32, John Hodrien wrote:
>
>> Once you've got an RPM database that only loosely reflects what you've
>> actually got installed you'll get into this situation more and more.
>
> Wow, I guess you never had to touch a .tar.gz, or a binary-only thing like
> flash or nVidia...  or pull something from CVS and cook it to get a broken
> thing working... Welcome To The Real World, Neo, where not everything you
> need is packaged.
>
>> Or maybe people just enjoy living in a world of pain?
>
> I'm happy when I can get on with my work with a minimum of detours into
> mysteries.  If a later RPM with a real .so.3 wants to crap on my symlink
> I'm
> happy.
>
The more likely to happen problem is software relying on something
provided by libcom_err.so.3 that isn't provided by libcom_err.so.2.  So
you know, six months down the road, when you forgot you made that symlink
and a newly installed program just keeps bombing out.  Then you start
wasting your time and developer's time trying to troubleshoot it.  If you
search bugzilla, you'll find libcom_err.so.3 is gone.  If you have a
binary RPM that requires it the best coarse of action is to rebuild that
RPM so it matches your installed libraries.

-- 
William Hooper


-- 
William Hooper