2000.05.23 07:03 "SONAME=libtiff.so", by Thomas Anders
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.
P.S. Sorry if this question has already been asked here. The mailing list archive unfortunately isn't searchable.
Thomas Anders <email@example.com>
Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin, Germany