Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:50:04 +0000
From:      Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
To:        Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
Cc:        Dave Dittrich <dittrich@cac.washington.edu>, ports@openbsd.org, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Shared libraries in packages 
Message-ID:  <199808262350.XAA01760@word.smith.net.au>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:42:02 -0400." <Pine.HPP.3.96.980826153332.8925B-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

You might not have wanted -stable here, so I've trimmed it.

> > I'm trying to load some of the network diagnostic tools, e.g. "ntop".
> > This package seems to want a shared library that doesn't exist anywhere I can
> > find:
> > 
> > sunhost# ntop
> > /usr/libexec/ld.so: ntop: libpcap.so.2.2: No such file or directory

This implies that the executable was built on a system with this 
libpcap present; either a FreeBSD system or another OpenBSD box.

You should build it locally to link against your local version of 
libpcap.

> > sunhost# ldconfig -r | grep libpcap
> > 40:-lpcap.0.2 => /usr/lib/libpcap.so.0.2
>  
> billf@jade$ ldconfig -r | grep libpcap
>         118:-lpcap.2.2 => /usr/lib/libpcap.so.2.2
> 
> > sunhost# ls /usr/local/src | grep pcap
> > libpcap
> > libpcap-0.4
> > pcapture-0.2.1

Perhaps someone else has decided to call their library 'libpcap'?

> > So the one that comes with OpenBSD is old (0.2) and that I have as a static
> > library is what I thought was the newest (the code from LLNL, the authors of
> > libpcap, is only version 0.4.)  Where did 2.2 come from? 
> 
> I can't honestly say why FreeBSD installs it as 2.2, though I am
> crossposting this to see why... (hi guys)...

We change the major and minor versions in accordance with a.out naming 
policy, not simply to match the version number of the particular 
package (which normally doesn't).

In this case, it means that the library has undergone one non-backwards
-compatible change (1.x to 2.1) and one backwards-compatible change 
(2.1 to 2.2).

> Refresh my memory, if a program has 'shared libraries' then aren't they
> build INTO the binary, so there are no dependencies at runtime, though I
> could be wrong.

The other way around; static libraries are built into the executable, 
shared libraries are linked at runtime.

-- 
\\  Sometimes you're ahead,       \\  Mike Smith
\\  sometimes you're behind.      \\  mike@smith.net.au
\\  The race is long, and in the  \\  msmith@freebsd.org
\\  end it's only with yourself.  \\  msmith@cdrom.com



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808262350.XAA01760>