Thanks a lot for Shawn’s reply. Yes, you pointed out the root cause for it. I
added “--soname=legacy” to the sqlite3 configure command line and it created
libsqlite3.so with SONAME. I did try to add this soname option earlier but
didn’t delete the .o files and there was nothing changed. Your de
I determined in my case that the problem was my build of libsqlite3 which for
some reason was missing the SONAME attribute from the binary. This had the
effect of the CMAKE build of GDAL containing the absolute path of libsqlite3 in
the libgdal.so file. I thought I’d share the details of how I
I reported the same problem recently, but I determined in my case that the
problem was my build of libsqlite3 which for some reason was missing the SONAME
attribute from the binary. This had the effect of the CMAKE build of GDAL
containing the absolute path of libsqlite3 in the libgdal.so file.
You can use patchelf or a similar program to modify dependencies.
--
Andrew Bell
andrew.bell...@gmail.com
On Wed, May 14, 2025, 6:10 PM Fengting Chen via gdal-dev <
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> Both GDAL and PROJ refer to my custom build sqlite3 library. The sqlite3
> entry in PROJ library
Both GDAL and PROJ refer to my custom build sqlite3 library. The sqlite3 entry
in PROJ library looks normal, that is, just the library name without path.
My concern is that libgdal.so has libsqlite3.so with full path. How could this
happen? How do I remove this?
From: Even Rouault
Date: Wednes
Maybe another library that GDAL is depending on is linked against the
system sqlite3 and not your custom build ? That could be PROJ typically
Le 14/05/2025 à 22:58, Fengting Chen via gdal-dev a écrit :
Hi, I am trying to build GDAL 3.10.3 with sqlite 3.49.2. The build was
successful on linux.
Hi, I am trying to build GDAL 3.10.3 with sqlite 3.49.2. The build was
successful on linux. But there are two entries of reference to sqlite3, and one
of it has the absolution path.
> ldd libgdal.so.36 | grep sqlite
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./libgdal.so.36'
Hi Andrew,
Can you be more specific about which RFCs ? Quick grep shows RFC9
superseded per RFC83 and RFC68 superseded per RFC98.
If that can help, we could potentially keep in master a mostly empty
document for superseded RFCs that would contain just a link to the new
RFC and a link to the
Hi,
I was wondering if some of the RFCs should be placed somewhere other than
on the web site because they are obsolete/superseded. I think this would
make it easier to find relevant current information. Some of the RFCs are
marked as superseded, but from the standpoint of a web search, the more
t
