On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 09 December 2011 06:21:18 Rainer Gerhards wrote: >> I am trying to build a program so that it does not refer to shared >> libraries by their version-specific name but rather a generic one. My >> intent is to use checkinstall to generate packages. >> >> As a concrete example, I use some basic openssl functionality that is >> available in both newer and older versions of the library (without any >> ABI issues). In essence, it does not matter if 0.9.x or 1.0.x is used. >> However, after my program is built, the exact version number seems to >> be required. So if I build on an older system and move the binary over >> to the newer one, the new one complains that 0.9.x is not available >> (which is fine with me, because 1.0.x does nicely). And vice versa for >> the other direction. > > it isn't possible to link against "libssl.so" and have that be recorded. you > have to realize that the differences between them isn't simply naming ... they > changed because the binary interfaces between the two versions changed. > > the closest you could do is load the library with dlopen(), then use dlsym() > to look up specific funcs, and then hope the specific functions you're using > didn't actually change between versions. > -mike Thanks, this explains the problem. So I probably need to think about going the dlopen() way as I know the function has not changed, so from my PoV either version is well. Thanks, Rainer _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
