On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:33:13 -0800 (PST), David Highley wrote: > > Sounds a bit as if you're missing the *-devel packages for those libs. > > libX11-devel libxml2-devel and so on. > > Ah, now we see the subtlety in the split between development and run time > packages. It had not dawned on us that the final symlink is tied to the > development package, especially as their are other symlinks being > applied. There is no "final" symlink. They are two separate types of symlinks: The versioned one is maintained by ldconfig for the runtime. The non-versioned .so is used by build-time tools (and may point directly at the fully versioned lib file - there is no need to create a chain of symlinks, such as .so -> .so.1 -> .so.1.0.0). Note that the split into run-time and build-time packages is somewhat controversial. There are exceptions, where the non-versioned .so symlink is used at runtime (e.g. via a dlopen method). At Fedora, it is not always tried to patch such code to open the versioned library instead. For example, if the developers insist on opening the non-versioned .so (if installed) and try to support a broad range of library interfaces instead of expecting a specific library version. Sometimes packagers accept the burden of adding and updating a patch, but there are exceptions. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
