libpurple.so.0.0.0 vs libpurple.so.0.2.1

[Richard Laager]

On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 12:17 -0700, Bill Fassler wrote:
> I started a new thread because I don't think this is specific to my
> unique environment.

The first thing I thought was exactly the opposite--that it *is*
specific to your environment? What makes you think it is not? Are you
seeing the same problem on your computer?

> Make install for the dependent libraries and Finch populates my ROMFS
> in such a 
> fashion: (My main concern is whether both libpurple.so.0.0.0 AND
> libpurple.so.0.2.1
> are both really necessary???)

Here's what I've got on a normal install on a regular computer:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 rlaager rlaager      18 2007-10-16 11:19 libpurple.so -> libpurple.so.0.2.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 rlaager rlaager      18 2007-10-16 11:19 libpurple.so.0 -> libpurple.so.0.2.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 rlaager rlaager 2407170 2007-10-16 11:19 libpurple.so.0.2.2

Look at the timestamps on your files:

> vocal at Grumpy:~/project/blackfin-svn-release/uClinux-dist/romfs/usr/lib
> $ ls -la
> total 13836
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 vocal admin 4183297 2007-10-15 11:48 libpurple.so.0.0.0
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 vocal admin 5265868 2007-10-16 14:19 libpurple.so.0.2.1

It looks to me like libpurple.so.0.0.0 was created by an older
installation attempt.

Please do your own research before e-mailing things to the list. You
could have and should have checked the two things I just brought up
before coming to us. You have already been warned about this.

Richard

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20071016/f2ffb8da/attachment.sig>