On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:03:18AM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> Hi, ĸen
>
> [I am reading the log of the strip everything just finished, so, do not
> have all I need to answer, but perhaps I have enough.]
>
> Yes, I solved it. Took me a while. Everything worked after I completely
> removed /usr/lib/libjpeg.so* and links to them (removed also libjpeg.la
> and libjpeg.a, but I believe you do not have these) and reinstalled
> libjpeg-turbo (no need to reinstall any of the mozillas, if they have
> been buit with system jpeg). I had libjpeg.so.8.1.something and think
> this was the source of the problems.
>
> Now, I have (I am in another host, performed, as I said, a strip
> everything in LFS):
>
> $ ls -l /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 445424 Jan 21 12:49 /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.a
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 784 Jan 21 12:49 /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.la
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:49 /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.so ->
> libjpeg.so.8.0.2
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:49 /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 ->
> libjpeg.so.8.0.2
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 365069 Jan 21 12:49 /mnt/LFS/usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.0.2
>
> One of the links libjpeg.so or libjpeg.so.8 was pointing to the old
> library, and just relinking did not solve. I removed with paco -r
> libjepg-${old-version}, perhaps you will need to check the old
> installed files to remove, if removing just the old libraries is not
> enough. I do not know what to do if you have libjpeg older than 8 and
> if these interfere too.
>
> It is a pleasure if I can help who has helped me so many times.
>
Intereesting. I have
$ls -l /usr/lib/libjpeg.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so ->
libjpeg.so.8.0.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 ->
libjpeg.so.8.4.0
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 297681 Jan 29 12:02 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.0.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 258534 Aug 25 01:14 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.4.0
So anything using libjpeg.so.8 would be using 8.4.0 from jpegsrc
instead of 8.0.2 from libjpeg-turbo. Which means that my testing
of 'display' from ImageMagick was picking up the old version. I
wonder if something in xulrunner links to .so.8 instead of .so ?
That might be interesting enough for me to try testing it (not
tonight, and maybe not tomorrow).
I can easily remake the .so.8 symlink, but I'll need to test some
other stuff if that does fix firefox.
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
