AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
May 2000

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2000.05.23 07:03 "SONAME=libtiff.so", by Thomas Anders
2000.05.23 12:39 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Helge Blischke
2000.05.23 14:24 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Frank Warmerdam
2000.05.23 15:28 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Thomas Anders
2000.05.23 15:55 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Helge Blischke

2000.05.23 07:03 "SONAME=libtiff.so", by Thomas Anders

Hello,

the latest libtiff 3.5.5 distribution produces a libtiff.so with a
SONAME=libtiff.so. Is there any reason for not having proper version
numbers in the SONAME?

Problem: Solaris ships with /usr/openwin/lib/libtiff.so (linked to
/usr/openwin/lib/libtiff.so.3; SONAME=libtiff.so.3). Applications
compiled against libtiff 3.5.5 depend on libtiff.so. Depending on the
library search path users may pick up /usr/openwin/lib/libtiff.so on
Solaris which is apparently bad.

I see two workarounds for the moment:

a. Remove the link /usr/openwin/lib/libtiff.so on all Solaris systems.
   This shouldn't break existing applications (e.g. sdtimage) compiled
   against Solaris' libtiff because they depend on libtiff.so.3. Of
   course I'd rather avoid having to do this on dozens of machines.
b. Set another SONAME, e.g. "libtiff.so.35", upon compilation (by
   "ld -h"). Which name can we all agree with?

Suggestions, comments appreciated.


Kind regards,
Thomas

P.S. Sorry if this question has already been asked here. The mailing list
archive unfortunately isn't searchable.

--
Thomas Anders <anders@hmi.de>
Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin, Germany