Bug 101678
Summary: | libtcl.so.0 and libtk.so.0 links are missing | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | jmccann |
Component: | tcltk | Assignee: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Bill Huang <bhuang> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 9 | CC: | cschalle, olle |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2003-08-06 03:40:24 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
jmccann
2003-08-05 15:24:05 UTC
Yes, I am afraid this is intentional. The so names in RHL 8.0 and earlier were non-standard (ad-hoc). I decided when updating tcltk for RHL 9 that following the so naming conventions of upstream is the right thing to do. As I'm sure you are aware this very undesireable. Here at JHU we have a large collection of systems that use a shared /usr/local. As we update our systems incrementally we have both RH8.0 and RH9 in production. Lots of broken software... That said, it sounds like you made the right decision to use the standard naming. Is there some kind of meta-bug for similar backward compatibility and API/ABI stability issues? These are very important for many people. *** Bug 104579 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** As noted in bug 104579 there is backwards compatibility however: On RHL 8.0 and earlier there is a symlink lib{tcl,tk}8.3.so -> lib{tcl,tk}.so.0, so programs linked against tcltk on RHL9 should run ok on 8.0 all other things being equal. I'm not aware of a better place to report API/ABI issues. |