From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 27 13:10:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED8916A4B3 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.pantherdragon.org (spork.pantherdragon.org [206.29.168.146]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E69444033 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:10:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmp@bitfreak.org) Received: from speck.techno.pagans (12-206-23-247.client.attbi.com [12.206.23.247]) by spork.pantherdragon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D672A41F for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from speck.techno.pagans (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by speck.techno.pagans (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AF96C117 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:10:27 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim To: freebsd-questions Message-Id: <20030927131027.2962eecf.dmp@bitfreak.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Can not find libintl.so.4? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:10:31 -0000 I have a desktop running 5.1+KDE. Building a port (finance/gnucash) failed when the install of a fresh gettext build failed due to there being an older version already present. To fix this, I cd into devel/gettext, run make deinstall && make reinstall. But now I have programs and other libs refusing to load (PHP, cyrus, sylpheed, et al). I get errors stating that libintl.so.4 could not be found. A check of/usr/local/lib shows a libintl.so.5 with libintl.so symlinked to it, but no libintl.so.4. Symlinking libintl.so.4 to .5 seems to have at least made it possible for everything to load again. I'm wondering, though, why this happened? Is there is a "more correct" way to fix the problem? Is this risk taken when one upgrades a massively interdependent set of installed ports?