[CentOS] Yum messages: /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1 is not a symbolic link

Filipe Brandenburger filbranden at gmail.com
Tue Dec 16 20:46:34 UTC 2008


Hi,

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 14:20, William L. Maltby
<CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Since I know nothing of the scripts (python?)

Usually they're Bourne shell script.

You can see the scripts used by cups-libs with this command:
rpm -q --scripts cups-libs

> I thought I'd better seek some help.

Always a good call! :-)

>> One of the steps "ldconfig" does is creating symbolic links for
>> libraries, using the name that is hard-coded inside the library.
>
> AH! Ergo, when it tries and there is a real file, is sensibly doesn't
> replace it. And it's nice enough to let the user know.

That's it.

> Hmm. Wouldn't an rpm -q --whatprovides tell all occurrences? Of course,
> if the miscreant package was since removed it couldn't. Maybe rpm
> expects only one source per resource?

Probably the miscreant package was not an RPM, since otherwise you
would have a conflict and it wouldn't install "cleanly".

RPM can be used to show that something unexpected was changed with
your original RPM if you use this command:
rpm --verify lzo

> # ls -l `locate liblzo.so`
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 406394 Nov  4 02:39 /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 406394 Nov  4 02:39 /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1.0.0

I would advise also doing "md5sum /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1*" to make
really sure they're the same.

As both files have the same date, I might be wrong in my suspicion
that that was the date the file replaced the symbolic link.

> It looks like the remove/ldconfig would be just as good here.

Yes!

> I'm going to check my logs and see if I can see what scrogged the setup.
> If I see anything likely, I'll post so others can see it.

Good, thanks!
Filipe


More information about the CentOS mailing list