[Dan, this is about the correct .so-name for libgdbm; your list has liggdbm.so.1.7.3, whereas the libc5.2 docs, Slackware, Red Hat have libgdbm.so.2.0]
> if this is truly a bug, can you explain the two URLs I > mentioned in the message below? (Already sent to debian-bugs, hence > not CC'ed again here...) I believe that the libgdbm version number got > bumped 'cos the libc 5.2 folks bumped it. I'm mostly worried that > debian's "fixing" of this is going to be an annoying source of binary > incompatibility for some people.... OK. It looks like this is a synchronization problem with the shared lib list. If H.J. has bumped the version number, we should definitively go along with it. Greetings, Ray > > Mark Eichin writes: > > > could you give me more information on this? (I'm the current libgdbm > > > maintainer.) Calling it libgdbm.so.2.0 would really seem like a > > > mistake, since after all, libgdbm itself is only at 1.7.3... but I can > > > > Well, it appears that the shared lib version number of libgdbm was > > bumped to 2.0 at some point in the development of libc 5.2 ... see > > > > http://imageek.york.cuny.edu/pub/sunsite/HJL/release.libc-5.2.3 > > and > > http://sunsite.kth.se/Linux/GCC/ChangeLog > > > > I can't pretend to understand the reasoning behind this, but both > > slackware and redhat appear to have gone along with it. If debian > > doesn't have it, it's effectively going to lose binary compatibility > > for programs using gdbm that were compiled on slackware or redhat. > > > > I guess the affected binaries fall into two groups: > > > > (1) precompiled binary distributions of software. An altavista > > search suggests that some releases of sendmail, NCSA httpd, and > > kerberos at least are dynamically linked against a libgdbm.so.2.0 > > > > (2) stuff compiled by endusers before they moved to debian. > > > > I hit category #2 (quite hard, since in my case it was a kerberized > > /bin/login that wouldn't work!). The problem is worsened by the fact > > that most people are not likely to realize that the missing 2.0.0 is > > in fact the 1.7.3 lib they already have; I certainly didn't. > > > > So: I guess I'm suggesting an extra symlink just to maintain > > compatibility with the other major linux distributions. Perhaps it > > would be worth contacting H. J. Lu to find out the rationale for the > > version number change. (He's the author of the info in both of the > > URLs above.) I guess libgdbm was separated from the libc distribution > > sometime after this version # change, but it would appear that most > > people haven't dropped the version # back down after the split. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Arup -- POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
