Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Found the file. > > I had (after many installs, without remove): > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 448148 Jan 21 12:47 /usr/lib/libjpeg.a > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 784 Jan 21 12:47 /usr/lib/libjpeg.la > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:47 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -> > libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:47 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 -> > libjpeg.so.8.4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 367352 Jan 21 12:47 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 926875 Jan 21 12:46 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.4.0 > > Now I have: > > $ ls -l /usr/lib/libjpeg.* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 445424 Jan 21 12:49 /usr/lib/libjpeg.a > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 784 Jan 21 12:49 /usr/lib/libjpeg.la > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:49 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -> > libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jan 21 12:49 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 -> > libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 365069 Jan 21 12:49 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.0.2 > > So, it was libjpeg.so.8.4.0 and the symlink libjpeg.so.8 which were > interfering.
You probably don't need the .a or .la files. I have nvidia hardware and don't notice any jpeg related problems: lrwxrwxrwx 16 Jul 1 2012 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so -> libjpeg.so.8.4.0 lrwxrwxrwx 16 Jul 1 2012 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8 -> libjpeg.so.8.4.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1027563 Jul 1 2012 /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.8.4.0 I have not stripped the library. I'm not sure your problem was 8.4.0 as much as having .so -> .8.0.2 (used for linking) and so.8 -> 8.4.0 (used at run time). -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
