AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

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 12:39 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Helge Blischke

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

Why not append the full libtiff version number, as SONAME=libtiff.so.5.3

?

Helge

PS: As I havent' compiled libtiff on Solaris yet, I never encountered this problem,

thus many thanks for the hint.

--
H.Blischke@srz-berlin.de
H.Blischke@srz-berlin.com
H.Blischke@acm.org