[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Please review this list of potentially missing .so symlinks.



On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:28:48 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> ld-linux.so

This isn't necessary, as it's not linked to in the normal fashion. Instead
the full soname is encoded into the ELF headers at compile time.

> libc.so

libc is automatically linked by gcc.

> libgcc_s.so

This is also automatically linked in by gcc in certain circumstances.

> libgcj.so

I think the same is true of this.

What that means is that you don't need unversioned symlinks as the
toolchain picks the right version for you.

> libgmodule-1.2.so

Do you have the glib1.2 development package installed? If so then this
does indeed look like an oversight.

> lib-org-w3c-dom.so
> lib-org-xml-sax.so
> lib-gnu-java-awt-peer-gtk.so

I think these are loaded by the GCJ classloading mechanism and aren't
linked in the normal fashion.
.6.so

> libNoVersion.so

This is a part of glibc and is probably a magic lib you don't normally
need to -l link against.

> libobjc.so

Another implicitly linked runtime library, AFAIK.

> libpthread.so
> libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so
> libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so
> libstdc++.so

These are usually implicitly linked as well, aren't they?

No clue about the rest. Hope that helps (and that I'm accurate)

thanks -mike



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]