Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 01:26:47 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 219606] aarch64: libarchive.so.6 not present, libarchive.so not equivalent @ 318898 Message-ID: <bug-219606-8-nj3zYew5F3@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-219606-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-219606-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219606 --- Comment #9 from Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> --- (In reply to Ed Maste from comment #8) > [Ed's description of shared library version handling] Yep, that is expected. I've tried to remember how or when I ran into a generic reference to a: /usr/lib/lib<something>.so or: /lib/lib<something>.so or some such being used to find a library when it was a symbolic link but I've not managed to remember anything. It was not recently --and not even necessarily under FreeBSD since I'm remembering so little. I just end up with a "careful of assumptions" reaction from some past problem that I ran into. All I can say that that I'm pretty sure I've run into the issue where something actually used a generic .so link directly and found and used directly what it pointed to instead of an original binding. (May be it was a fail-over for the original binding not being available to find any more?) This can be translated to: if things still seem to not be working as expected, see if you can check if the link is in direct use from a context where that would not work. A "yes" to that would mean another problem is involved someplace. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-219606-8-nj3zYew5F3>