Hi,

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:54, Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:

# ls -l /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Oct 13 18:38 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 -> libstdc++.so.5.0.7 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 733168 Jan 8 2007 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5.0.7 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 804212 Oct 23 10:09 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 936908 May 26 15:16 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8

The libstdc++.so.6 is dated October 23rd, less than one month ago and newer than libstdc++.so.6.0.8. It seems like it was replaced after the RPM was installed.

# rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5 # rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8 libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5

You can check the date the RPM was installed with 'rpm -qi libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5'.

You can also use 'rpm --verify libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5' to check if the files match the RPM database, I suspect 'rpm --verify ...' will tell you that libstdc++.so.6 does not match the version that was installed with the RPM.

so my inclination is to remove the /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 and create a symlink to libstdc++.so.6.26 to replace it. Does this make sense?

Makes sense to me.

What about the libxml2.so which apparently is there because of the devel package?

Same date on the offending file. Do you have any idea of what did you install that day?

Is this a CentOS packaging issue ?

Probably not, it's probably something that was installed from source and not from RPM.

HTH, Filipe