[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: libldap-2.2.so.7 - RHEL4 library problem
- To: Buchan Milne <bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net>
- Subject: Re: libldap-2.2.so.7 - RHEL4 library problem
- From: Yuugy <cloudraver@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=39ax0ZEle+QEAz70b1XiF06jDzZDkqiLsDNNViRmeOt7xEMd6RUmgK1rwFjdA0RfMYBrO3lyJ5OupNWHfVaLi+V5FZb/zG77KiKdPFW0awM2vfQAQQh3DA7Ztby8AEPYkaa2XTTMEndcwsVSTl7Q5XlXvdNWv5RY+2HO89hPo3g= ;
- In-reply-to: <200603240832.16293.bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net>
Buchan,
Thanks for the answers! I'm in the process of
building a RHEL spec file and trying to the library
issue on my own but am confused as to how to install
the OpenLDAP 2.3.20 libraries without conflicting with
the current official RHEL library. How and what do I
look at to remedy this?
--- Buchan Milne <bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:46, Yuugy wrote:
> > Buchan,
> >
> > I'm curious how were you able to get libldap2.3.0
> to
> > install without conflicting with libldap2.2. Is
> it
> > the install location that's the key to all this or
> > just registering libldap2.3.0 with the system in
> the
> > spec file?
>
> A sane library policy, which dictates that packages
> that contain libraries
> should contain only libraries, and have a unique
> name (based on the library
> major). Since the file names will differ if the
> library major differs (except
> for the "devel" aspects, eg the symlink from
> libsoname.so to the
> libsoname.so.$major and the headers), there is then
> no conflict at all, and
> simultaneous installation of multiple major versions
> of the library is
> possible. This eases updates (the chicken/egg
> problem of having to uninstall
> all software depending on the old library so that
> you can rebuilt it against
> the new library), and also ensures users don't have
> libraries removed when
> they still have (custom-compiled) software which
> relies on the library. It
> also makes life a bit easier on a bi-arch system.
>
> Red Hat doesn't seem to have a policy on library
> packaging, and SUSE's is not
> really comprehensive (compared to Debian, Mandriva
> and a few other distros
> which have comprehensive and sane library packaging
> policies).
>
> Regards,
> Buchan
>
> --
> Buchan Milne
> ISP Systems Specialist
> B.Eng,RHCE(803004789010797),LPIC-2(LPI000074592)
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com