On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Hugo van der Kooij wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Did others notic there seems to be a problem with ldconfig on Centos > 5? > Hmmm, its not the responsibility of ldconfig to recreate *.so files afaik. > It got apparant with the latest clamav update of rpmforge but it seems > that ldconfig does not bild all the information that is required. > What information is missing? Does clamav have a DT_SONAME (see readelf.a) Note also that rpm can fail to run ldconfig while upgrading. The very last ldconfig in a transaction can be skipped wrongly if the packages happen to be arranged that way. Run /sbin/ldconfig manually if that bothers. 73 de Jeff > Or as the report read on the MailScanner mailinglist: > >> And some more fun: >> >> [root at liquidity lib]# rm libclamunrar.so.6 libclamunrar_iface.so.6 >> rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar.so.6'? y >> rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar_iface.so.6'? y >> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so. >> 6.0.2 >> [root at liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep unrar >> libclamunrar.so.6 -> libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 (changed) >> libclamunrar_iface.so.6 -> libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 >> (changed) >> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Apr 1 17:24 libclamunrar.so.6 -> >> libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so. >> 6.0.2 >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Apr 1 17:24 libclamunrar_iface.so.6 -> >> libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 >> >> >> The issue doesn't appear to be isolated to just ClamAV, though. >> Look in >> your libs and delete any linked .so file and re-run ldconfig. The .so >> isn't recreated. >> >> [root at liquidity lib]# rm libbeecrypt.so libbeecrypt.so.6 >> rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so'? y >> rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so.6'? y >> [root at liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep libbeecr >> libbeecrypt.so.6 -> libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 (changed) >> [root at liquidity lib]# ls -lra libbeecrypt* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 251704 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Apr 1 17:25 libbeecrypt.so.6 -> >> libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 833 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.la >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 340262 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.a > > Is this something that needs to be reported upstream? Or is it > Centos 5 > specific? > > Hugo. > > - -- > hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ > PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc > > A: Yes. > >Q: Are you sure? > >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > > Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAknT4AgACgkQBvzDRVjxmYEA5QCgrGnY/e5/0bWXRi6jEJI6ByPf > LvoAn23lt58ucrqSv9WcUpu/e0qZGblg > =Mms2 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel